Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

2. The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science

''"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more.''
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

4 more examples of transitional fossils: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#41832e222d8d

That's a nice attempt at evading the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. If there were intermediated fossils, they could be pointed at, and evolutionists wouldn't have to make all kinds of excuses for their not being there. As it is, evolution people who try to suggest that intermediate fossils are unimportant, fill the books with gibberish so that people are distracted from the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. No intermediate fossils means no evolution in the sense of evolution theory... or have you found the string of those intermediate fossils that show evolution changes as they go?

If there were evolution beneficial mutations in some animal species, according to evolution theory, it would happen only once, here and there, with big time gaps of no evolution mutation between happenings. This means that all the interbreeding between a mutated animal and the normal animals would have bred the mutation out of existence. It's the way that it works. Immune systems do that in mutations.

Punctuated evolution was an attempt at pushing mutations closer together in time, so that there would be less chance of a mutation being destroyed by the immune system before the next mutation could come along.

Evolutionists are simply grasping at straws. And the straws are falling to pieces before they can really take hold of them. The reason why evolution has gained such strength, is exactly the same reason why religions spring up with great strength throughout history. Like the other religions, the evolution religion will gradually die out as more and more people wake up to the fact that there is essentially nothing factual to support it, and that evolution scientists are simply talkers who have talked people into believing something that has no substance.

Evolution is a hoax.

Maybe you can see it better now.

[1713877622]

1713877622

[1713877622]

1713877622

[Gimpeline]

I was kind of amazed by the exchange of ideas here.

Well, for me, evolution remains to be a theory, yes, just that, a theory, until now. I don't know how Charles Darwin became a celebrity scientist right after he theorized that what we are now are different centuries and centuries ago. Perhaps because his idea was sort of radically new? The discovery actually caused a bandwagon mentality among a lot people. The entire world was stirred by his claim. Established religion was terribly shaken to its core. School curricula are challenged. The people's comfort zone was rendered uncomfortable.  

You are not making any sence here. I know that you dont know what evolution theory is, so mabye read up about it?
Everything you said in the last post supports evolution, so why are you calling it a hoax?

Edit: I'm interested to know where you disagrees with evolutoion. Not some stoneage bible quotes that means nothing
And dont say rabbits and donkeys or some stupid thing making babies since evolution don't say that

Since there isn't any proven example of even one instance of evolution theory kind of evolution, evolution is a religion. Since it is being propagated as truth by those who know that there isn't anything to back it up, evolution is a hoax.

You have given a few excamples yourself of proven evolution without knowing it, since you don't know what it is, so where is the hoax?

[BADecker]

2. The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science

''"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more.''
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

4 more examples of transitional fossils: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#41832e222d8d

That's a nice attempt at evading the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. If there were intermediated fossils, they could be pointed at, and evolutionists wouldn't have to make all kinds of excuses for their not being there. As it is, evolution people who try to suggest that intermediate fossils are unimportant, fill the books with gibberish so that people are distracted from the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. No intermediate fossils means no evolution in the sense of evolution theory... or have you found the string of those intermediate fossils that show evolution changes as they go?

If there were evolution beneficial mutations in some animal species, according to evolution theory, it would happen only once, here and there, with big time gaps of no evolution mutation between happenings. This means that all the interbreeding between a mutated animal and the normal animals would have bred the mutation out of existence. It's the way that it works. Immune systems do that in mutations.

Punctuated evolution was an attempt at pushing mutations closer together in time, so that there would be less chance of a mutation being destroyed by the immune system before the next mutation could come along.

Evolutionists are simply grasping at straws. And the straws are falling to pieces before they can really take hold of them. The reason why evolution has gained such strength, is exactly the same reason why religions spring up with great strength throughout history. Like the other religions, the evolution religion will gradually die out as more and more people wake up to the fact that there is essentially nothing factual to support it, and that evolution scientists are simply talkers who have talked people into believing something that has no substance.

Evolution is a hoax.

Maybe you can see it better now.

Okay. Let me say it real plain.

Consider all of the missing links in the video, and all the rest of them anywhere else, as well.

Two stages:
1. Conversion of one animal form to the missing link;
2. Conversion of the missing link to another animal form.

There would be billions of mutations necessary for each stage to happen. Evolution theory does not provide for those billions of mutations in either type of conversion. Evolution theory says that the mutations would be few and far between. Common probability agrees with this. There would have to be many more missing links between both:
1. the one animal form to the so-called missing link conversion;
2. the so-called missing link to another animal form conversion;
for either of them to have become a missing link. So, if evolution is real, where are all these additional missing links?

In other words, even evolution theory does not support this stuff in your link.

Those so-called missing links were simply creatures of their own kind, or were simple adaptation of a form to its environment without evolution theory evolution at all.

But you know this. I simply reply for the educational benefit of those who do NOT know it.

[BADecker]

Since there isn't any proven example of even one instance of evolution theory kind of evolution, evolution is a religion. Since it is being propagated as truth by those who know that there isn't anything to back it up, evolution is a hoax.

You have given a few excamples yourself of proven evolution without knowing it, since you don't know what it is, so where is the hoax?

Since you don't list them, or their source posts, how would anyone know if you have any credibility in what you say?

[BADecker]

GAPING holes in evolutionary theory leave scientists baffled (and Darwin rolling in his grave)

The theory of evolution is taught as undeniable fact in many of America’s public schools, despite the fact that even evolutionary scientists admit that they’re unable to explain certain key elements of its dogma, including how the first man and woman came into existence and procreated.

Many call it the “queen of evolutionary problems” – the inability to even remotely explain the origin of sex using evolutionary rationale. And yet, questioning this glaring issue is prohibited by members of the evolution cult, many of whom argue that the mere act of discussing the matter with an open mind breaches Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state.

Writing about this hypocrisy, former law professor LaGard Smith, who used to teach at Pepperdine University, reveals some specifics as to what would have been necessary within the evolutionary model for humanity to have begun.

...

If you really think about it, evolution would have been impossible as currently described

Read more at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-20-gaping-holes-in-evolutionary-theory-scientists-baffled.html.

[BADecker]

If science shows us the God exists, how would you test that hypothesis?

What experiments did science do to test the existence of God?

I think your God is not only a hoax, but a flat out fraud.

Any hypothesis needs to be clearly stated so that people can attempt to make a theory out of it. The same would be needed for a God-hypothesis. Besides, does anybody take something that is scientifically shown to be a fact, and make a hypothesis to determine if it is fact? That doesn't even make sense. If science already shows that God exists - as you stated - there is no sense in making a hypothesis to determine if He exists. Why? Because it has already been shown.

As for doing scientific tests to show God's existence, you might as well do scientific tests to show that cause and effect exist. C&E are self evident. Essentially 100% of scientific tests are C&E tests. When you go back to the basics like this, talking about doing scientific tests is talking about doing something that is exceedingly redundant, and essentially universal, already. See the "Scientific proof that God exists?" thread for all the information that proves that God exists.

You almost sound religiously hurt, feelings-wise, in the way you express that you think that God is a hoax. Why not examine the scientific proof that God exists, and the limited evidence that is against Him, and change your religion to a God religion. At least you would be doing something more logical that way.

On top of the above, you don't even express what all that has to do with evolution being a hoax or not.

So what is your test?  Let's go, let's test if God exist.  List all the steps of your scientific test and the expected result.

Or be quiet forever.

You don't test for the evident. But if you want to try, go ahead.

Two posts up, and a whole lot of other posts in this thread, show that evolution is a hoax. The alternative is God, or do you have another alternative?

Proof(s) for God:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Now remember. This is the evolution hoax thread. Peruse the Scientific proof that God exists thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 ) to see the proof for God.

[twthmoses]

The dictionary at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/devolution?s=t disagrees with your claim that there is no devolution.

A wood carver carves a log into a chair. As he chips tiny pieces of wood off the log, at what point is it no longer a log, but a chair? If it is both at some points, what's the purpose? - evolution theory says that evolution has purposes why something evolves into the next stage.

In addition, how is it prove that the billions of daily changes are evolution and not adaptation. Adaptation can easily be proven, but evolution can only be suggested. So far, there isn't even one change that has been proven to be evolution... or have you found one?

I get the feeling we are not really discussing, you just don’t want evolution to exist, which is fair enough that you don’t believe in it. To each his own.

Evolution is change, any kind of change. You believe in adoption, but not evolution? If you adopt or acquire a new skill, have you not essential evolved? It might not be a physical change with your new found knowledge; it can still be passed on though. You are able to adopt mental, in skill, in knowledge, in behavior, yet somehow physical adoption seems too far stretch for you?

There is amber evidence in every species that they have looked different at one point, including humans. Leftovers include tail bone, thirteenth rib (8%), appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib (1%), third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and augmentable male nipples and body hair.

Seems God was not really sure how we should look during creation.

[BADecker]

The dictionary at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/devolution?s=t disagrees with your claim that there is no devolution.

A wood carver carves a log into a chair. As he chips tiny pieces of wood off the log, at what point is it no longer a log, but a chair? If it is both at some points, what's the purpose? - evolution theory says that evolution has purposes why something evolves into the next stage.

In addition, how is it prove that the billions of daily changes are evolution and not adaptation. Adaptation can easily be proven, but evolution can only be suggested. So far, there isn't even one change that has been proven to be evolution... or have you found one?

I get the feeling we are not really discussing, you just don’t want evolution to exist, which is fair enough that you don’t believe in it. To each his own.

Evolution is change, any kind of change. You believe in adoption, but not evolution? If you adopt or acquire a new skill, have you not essential evolved? It might not be a physical change with your new found knowledge; it can still be passed on though. You are able to adopt mental, in skill, in knowledge, in behavior, yet somehow physical adoption seems too far stretch for you?

There is amber evidence in every species that they have looked different at one point, including humans. Leftovers include tail bone, thirteenth rib (8%), appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib (1%), third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and augmentable male nipples and body hair.

Seems God was not really sure how we should look during creation.

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

[BADecker]

You don't test for the evident. But if you want to try, go ahead.

Two posts up, and a whole lot of other posts in this thread, show that evolution is a hoax. The alternative is God, or do you have another alternative?

Proof(s) for God:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Now remember. This is the evolution hoax thread. Peruse the Scientific proof that God exists thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 ) to see the proof for God.

If it was evident, any test would work.

Anyway, you don't have a test.  I rest my case.  

You cannot even test if God exist, never mind proving that your God exists.

Step back, figure out how to test it.  Repeat the test many times.  Collect the results.  Draw the conclusions.

Again, there is no need for testing something that is excessively in use all over the world. Every time that a scientist makes an experiment, he is using the same stuff that proves God. In other words, take your pick of scientific experiments for your test example.

[Astargath]

The dictionary at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/devolution?s=t disagrees with your claim that there is no devolution.

A wood carver carves a log into a chair. As he chips tiny pieces of wood off the log, at what point is it no longer a log, but a chair? If it is both at some points, what's the purpose? - evolution theory says that evolution has purposes why something evolves into the next stage.

In addition, how is it prove that the billions of daily changes are evolution and not adaptation. Adaptation can easily be proven, but evolution can only be suggested. So far, there isn't even one change that has been proven to be evolution... or have you found one?

I get the feeling we are not really discussing, you just don’t want evolution to exist, which is fair enough that you don’t believe in it. To each his own.

Evolution is change, any kind of change. You believe in adoption, but not evolution? If you adopt or acquire a new skill, have you not essential evolved? It might not be a physical change with your new found knowledge; it can still be passed on though. You are able to adopt mental, in skill, in knowledge, in behavior, yet somehow physical adoption seems too far stretch for you?

There is amber evidence in every species that they have looked different at one point, including humans. Leftovers include tail bone, thirteenth rib (8%), appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib (1%), third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and augmentable male nipples and body hair.

Seems God was not really sure how we should look during creation.

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8?IR=T

Plenty of examples.

[BADecker]

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8?IR=T

Plenty of examples.

Those are examples of suggested evolution by novices and scientists who wish that they were examples of evolution. They are inconclusive regarding evolution. But they are not inconclusive regarding being simple adaptation.

[Astargath]

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8?IR=T

Plenty of examples.

Those are examples of suggested evolution by novices and scientists who wish that they were examples of evolution. They are inconclusive regarding evolution. But they are not inconclusive regarding being simple adaptation.

Nope, those are examples of evolution and you can't debunk them so you type simple sentences so your brain doesn't stop working. It happens all the time, your brain has a defense mechanism, it will not accept being wrong and it has to ignore these arguments.

[twthmoses]

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

Why you say that? What do you mean you can't find any factual example? All offspring’s of all species on this planet is an example! There are 100 of trillions of examples for you to view right this instant.

There is nothing complex about evolution, its rather simple - it’s just change, any change.

Ok so I ask another way; if all species are created and never change, why do all individual specimens not look the same of each species? Why do all humans not look they very same, and I mean the very same? Why do they keep coming up with new forms, shapes and sizes? What would you call this every changing, renewing physical appearances?

[IsusCu]

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

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

why wouldn't there be monkeys?? I think that you might be thinking that us humans evolved from monkies, that's not true at all. Humans and monkeys evolved from the same species that's not a monkey nor a human. that species is often referred to as a "common ancestor". as the time passed by that "common ancestor" evolved into 2 or more different species the same way pigs that humans domesticated evolved so differently from the pigs that were in the wild that they become 2 different species (pigs and wild boars).

[BADecker]

It's really difficult to think that something as detailed, complex, and drawn-out-in-time as evolution, might exist when you can't even find one factual example of it. If the evidences that are suggested to be for evolution, didn't fit adaptation or something else better, we might have a reason to suggest that we should go looking for something like evolution.

There isn't any evolution theory evolution. We have nothing that says that there is evolution except a bunch of scientific people who suggest something that is essentially impossible, while ignoring the things that are highly probable.  That's it!

Evolution is a hoax!

Why you say that? What do you mean you can't find any factual example? All offspring’s of all species on this planet is an example! There are 100 of trillions of examples for you to view right this instant.

That's a neat idea you have there. But just saying it doesn't mean anything, since simple adaptation fits it better than evolution theory evolution.

There is nothing complex about evolution, its rather simple - it’s just change, any change.

The Model T Ford was first produced in 1908. Nowadays Ford makes all kinds of other cars, as well. Is this evolution?

The point in this topic has been evolution theory evolution. Evolution theory evolution does not include every type of change. And the so-called evolution theory evolutionary changes fit plain old adaptation better than they fit evolution theory.

Ok so I ask another way; if all species are created and never change, why do all individual specimens not look the same of each species? Why do all humans not look they very same, and I mean the very same? Why do they keep coming up with new forms, shapes and sizes? What would you call this every changing, renewing physical appearances?

It's called genetic programming, and operates according to the laws of physics which act through cause and effect. In other words, it is programming. And programming has a programmer.

This part of your questions is starting into the idea of Who or What the Programmer of the Universe is. But the point of this thread is that the available facts do not fit evolution theory evolution. Google "evolution impossible."

[IsusCu]

What if God is not a being or anything like that. What if God is just an idea, a collective way of acting and thinking.. just like the economy is.. The more people using the currency make the value of it go up. What if God is a similar principle; the more people believe in it the more widespread those ideas become..

I'm not very religious but if your religion makes you do good to others than I'll support that idea and help spread it..

[twthmoses]

The Model T Ford was first produced in 1908. Nowadays Ford makes all kinds of other cars, as well. Is this evolution?

The point in this topic has been evolution theory evolution. Evolution theory evolution does not include every type of change. And the so-called evolution theory evolutionary changes fit plain old adaptation better than they fit evolution theory.

I think we have quite a different view of what evolution is. I get the feeling you think, you take one part chicken and another part chicken, put it in a pot and out comes a horse. Some kind of terraforming that should happened at one point or another. A magical change.

Evolution never worked this way and never will work this way.

I’m taller than my father, and his father and his father. I know this, because I knew them all. It’s the result of ever taller parents producing offspring’s. Apparently taller people in the last 100-500-1000? years have had a better chance of reproduction. I don’t know, just guessing.

Either way, I’m better than my father at grabbing apples of a tree, because I’m taller. I can get some he can’t. It is not something I adopted to, I’m by nature better at it. I was born more suited for it. Is it a skill I can use in our time, probably not. But at one point in time it maybe could have been. Is it programming, sure is, a specified mix of DNA gave this result. Any other mix would maybe have given me something similar, but not quite the same. I have evolved.

So to answer if a Ford T from 1908 has evolved to what Ford sells now – absolutely! This is evolution. You take what you have, mix it, improve on it, and you get something new, possible better – but it is society that judges if a given change is better for society as a whole, not the changes themselves. The only difference between cars and humans is that cars needs help to reproduce, humans does not.  Might change in the future, but either way, its still evolution.

[BADecker]

The Model T Ford was first produced in 1908. Nowadays Ford makes all kinds of other cars, as well. Is this evolution?

The point in this topic has been evolution theory evolution. Evolution theory evolution does not include every type of change. And the so-called evolution theory evolutionary changes fit plain old adaptation better than they fit evolution theory.

I think we have quite a different view of what evolution is. I get the feeling you think, you take one part chicken and another part chicken, put it in a pot and out comes a horse. Some kind of terraforming that should happened at one point or another. A magical change.

Evolution never worked this way and never will work this way.

I think that you don't understand me. I am one of those who would highly agree that evolution doesn't work this way. Another way evolution doesn't work is according to evolution theory.

I’m taller than my father, and his father and his father. I know this, because I knew them all. It’s the result of ever taller parents producing offspring’s. Apparently taller people in the last 100-500-1000? years have had a better chance of reproduction. I don’t know, just guessing.

This has to do with your eating of more meat, particularly beef, than your father and grandfather. But if it doesn't, it has to do with the genetics of your ancestors, including your mother and grandmother, but possibly a nutrient defect within yourself that caused you to have abnormally high HGH in your body.

Either way, I’m better than my father at grabbing apples of a tree, because I’m taller. I can get some he can’t. It is not something I adopted to, I’m by nature better at it. I was born more suited for it. Is it a skill I can use in our time, probably not. But at one point in time it maybe could have been. Is it programming, sure is, a specified mix of DNA gave this result. Any other mix would maybe have given me something similar, but not quite the same. I have evolved.

Your evolution is genetic programming, environmentally directed, or simple adaptation.

So to answer if a Ford T from 1908 has evolved to what Ford sells now – absolutely! This is evolution. You take what you have, mix it, improve on it, and you get something new, possible better – but it is society that judges if a given change is better for society as a whole, not the changes themselves. The only difference between cars and humans is that cars needs help to reproduce, humans does not.  Might change in the future, but either way, its still evolution.

I use "evolution" in the Model T way on occasion. We are similar in this. Where we differ is evolution theory evolution (ETE), which is different than Model T evolution, and other forms of change listed above.

We have no proven example of evolution theory evolution... not even one. We have a lot of people who suggest or believe in ETE. Essentially all of the ETE evidence can be shown to be adaptation or something other than ETE, better and easier than it can be shown to be ETE.

Evolution theory evolution is a hoax, even if you want to use the word "evolution" for simple changes in things other than ETE... including adaptation and simple change.

[BADecker]

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8?IR=T

Plenty of examples.

Those are examples of suggested evolution by novices and scientists who wish that they were examples of evolution. They are inconclusive regarding evolution. But they are not inconclusive regarding being simple adaptation.

Nope, those are examples of evolution and you can't debunk them so you type simple sentences so your brain doesn't stop working. It happens all the time, your brain has a defense mechanism, it will not accept being wrong and it has to ignore these arguments.

They debunk themselves right in their own language. In what way? you might ask. In the way that the language is full of things that haven't been proven, and often don't make any sense, or are incomplete, or lack facts to support them. All you have to do is track down all the statements in every example to its base, and you will come up with circular references, or dead ends.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8?IR=T

Plenty of examples.

Those are examples of suggested evolution by novices and scientists who wish that they were examples of evolution. They are inconclusive regarding evolution. But they are not inconclusive regarding being simple adaptation.

Nope, those are examples of evolution and you can't debunk them so you type simple sentences so your brain doesn't stop working. It happens all the time, your brain has a defense mechanism, it will not accept being wrong and it has to ignore these arguments.

They debunk themselves right in their own language. In what way? you might ask. In the way that the language is full of things that haven't been proven, and often don't make any sense, or are incomplete, or lack facts to support them. All you have to do is track down all the statements in every example to its base, and you will come up with circular references, or dead ends.

Evolution is a hoax.

Nope, they all have a ton of evidence behind them and are normal examples of evolution, you can find hundreds. All of them with evidence and proof.  You can see it in humans, there are plenty of fossils of our ancestors.

https://hastyreader.com/anagenesis-cladogenesis/

All of these are documented facts, you are just delusional.