Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

I believe you're both right here, guys. A hoax isn't the perfect word, of course, but today's "universities and other people of science" should change the way they interpret it. IMO, they should teach it as a part of a history of scientific thought or something

However, the idea of evolution being taught as reality, even though there is not one proven example of it, and even though there could be other ideas for the things of nature, is not unique. For example:

How often does anybody hear that 1 + 1 is not 2? We are all taught that it is a fact that 1 + 1 = 2, right? It is possibly only in studies of philosophy, or maybe some weird form of quantum mechanics, where thought on the idea of 1 + 1 not equaling 2 might ever be talked about? But I can easily show you that 1 + 1 does not = 2... that 1 + 1 always = 1 + 1.

Here it is: There are not two things in the universe that are completely the same. This means that we are talking about different items. Even if they are the same like two electrons might be exactly the same, yet they are different because they hold different places in space/time.

Practically speaking, for our everyday living, 1 + 1 = 2 might work very well, and might help us along in life. But the whole thing is a lie. And we live with a lie, throughout our lives, in our everyday transactions, in the most basic of math that we all use.

So, why wouldn't somebody try to foist the use of evolution ideas on us, even though we have never seen even one proven example of it? Why not, instead, explain that our entire math system is completely abstract, even though it seems to work? And then add the idea of evolution to this abstractness (and probably a whole lot of other things)?

But no. Rather than teaching the truth, clearly, our institutions of higher learning attempt to take us deeper into the lie that the abstract is truth and reality.

This thread is about the hoax of evolution. So, it might be difficult to show how many things that we think are solid reality, are in "truth" simply abstract ideas. But it might be just the thing for people in this forum. Why? Barely anyone recognizes that evolution is not known to be reality. You are one of the few who seems to be willing to admit it.

So, what about those others? You know, the ones who would rather go on their merry way, accept the negative probability about evolution, and not even admit that there is a chance that they are wrong about it, and all this in the face of not finding even one example of it for-a-fact? Why do they spread something that is proven to be impossible in other ways? Is it dream time for them? Seems to me that the whole thing is rooted in a lie, and people like it that way.

Evolution is a hoax.

[1715182429]

1715182429

[1715182429]

1715182429

[airbamboo]

I do not believe in the theory of evolution , Because the theory is not clear

[Norihiro]

If monkeys exist - it doesn't absolutely prove that evolution is a hoax, we have different ways in evolution that's why they are still monkeys.

[Moloch]

You know you are crazy when you rant on and on for 172 pages and nobody cares, lmfao

How is BADLogic any different from a street preacher standing on a soapbox in the park?

[twthmoses]

We use the word "evolution" in different ways. For example, the Model T Ford evolved over many years into the variety of Ford vehicles that we have today. This, however, is not what is meant by evolution theory evolution (ETE). ETE does not match the evolution of Ford cars except in the simple way that both of them are change. The rest of ETE doesn't match what happened in Ford car evolution.

This is the same with nature, life, and the world around us. Certainly there is change. So, in that simple sense there is evolution, just like in Ford cars. The thing that has not been found in changes in the world around is a change from one species to another in nature. Yet that is exactly what is required for ETE to exist... along with a bunch of other changes.

Adaptation is not necessarily a learned trait. In fact, cause and effect highly suggests that it is built in rather than learned, and that the whole process of teaching and learning is the effect of causes. Teaching and learning follows complex laws of physics. We think they are simple because we don't understand much of the complexity. It just happens. But cause and effect dictates how it happens, and the ways the changes happen through learning. Training is set in place by cause and effect.

What does such training have to do with evolution? It is change... semantics. But it is not the kind of change talked about in ETE.

ETE is a hoax, i.e., evolution is a hoax.

I don’t understand what it is you need to find?

You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.

Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.

As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.

Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.

In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.

[Astargath]

We use the word "evolution" in different ways. For example, the Model T Ford evolved over many years into the variety of Ford vehicles that we have today. This, however, is not what is meant by evolution theory evolution (ETE). ETE does not match the evolution of Ford cars except in the simple way that both of them are change. The rest of ETE doesn't match what happened in Ford car evolution.

This is the same with nature, life, and the world around us. Certainly there is change. So, in that simple sense there is evolution, just like in Ford cars. The thing that has not been found in changes in the world around is a change from one species to another in nature. Yet that is exactly what is required for ETE to exist... along with a bunch of other changes.

Adaptation is not necessarily a learned trait. In fact, cause and effect highly suggests that it is built in rather than learned, and that the whole process of teaching and learning is the effect of causes. Teaching and learning follows complex laws of physics. We think they are simple because we don't understand much of the complexity. It just happens. But cause and effect dictates how it happens, and the ways the changes happen through learning. Training is set in place by cause and effect.

What does such training have to do with evolution? It is change... semantics. But it is not the kind of change talked about in ETE.

ETE is a hoax, i.e., evolution is a hoax.

I don’t understand what it is you need to find?

You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.

Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.

As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.

Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.

In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.

He thinks animals randomly and spontaneously pop into existence then die and another species of animal pop into existence with features that would seem like evolution did it but nope. That's basically what he thinks.

[BADecker]

We use the word "evolution" in different ways. For example, the Model T Ford evolved over many years into the variety of Ford vehicles that we have today. This, however, is not what is meant by evolution theory evolution (ETE). ETE does not match the evolution of Ford cars except in the simple way that both of them are change. The rest of ETE doesn't match what happened in Ford car evolution.

This is the same with nature, life, and the world around us. Certainly there is change. So, in that simple sense there is evolution, just like in Ford cars. The thing that has not been found in changes in the world around is a change from one species to another in nature. Yet that is exactly what is required for ETE to exist... along with a bunch of other changes.

Adaptation is not necessarily a learned trait. In fact, cause and effect highly suggests that it is built in rather than learned, and that the whole process of teaching and learning is the effect of causes. Teaching and learning follows complex laws of physics. We think they are simple because we don't understand much of the complexity. It just happens. But cause and effect dictates how it happens, and the ways the changes happen through learning. Training is set in place by cause and effect.

What does such training have to do with evolution? It is change... semantics. But it is not the kind of change talked about in ETE.

ETE is a hoax, i.e., evolution is a hoax.

I don’t understand what it is you need to find?

You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.

Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.

As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.

Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.

In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.

It isn't what I need to find. It is what you need to show me.

For example. You say, above, "It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust." Let's examine that statement from the pile of dust standpoint. You have a pile of dust, say, rust dust. Then you say, this pile of rust dust used to be a Mercedes Benz. But how do you know? It might have been a Chev or a Ford or a simple I-beam, or anyone of dozens of things.

With regard to evolution, there has to be a way to show that the pile of dust was evolution and not adaptation. Of course you can't show this by looking at things that have turned to dust. That's the whole point. find something that you can use to factually show evolution. Since things of the past won't show it - as you said - why do people keep on using fossils of the past to suggest that evolution is happening, when the past suggests adaptation way better... or nothing at all?

Another example. In this thread the post at - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg43890150#msg43890150 - Moloch shows this picture:



The picture shows a bunch of similarities between creatures in their development. What the picture doesn't show is the DNA differences. The DNA differences are always there. That's why the creatures turn into completely different types and species. It doesn't have anything to do with proving evolution. In other words, if evolution exists, the picture doesn't prove it one way or another. So, why use it? Get to the point and show the proof for evolution.

All the things you talk about in your post aren't proof of evolution. The whole thing shows adaptation, simple change, and intelligent design way better than it shows evolution, evolution which can't even be found for-a-fact.

One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one, and better than it was before. The mutation has to be in the DNA. It has to be very tiny - microscopic - because the odds are against big mutations, or multiple mutations, happening at once are too great.

This is the thing scientists have been looking for, for decades. They haven't found it. They might not recognize it if it stared them in the face. And proving that the mutation would be a beneficial one rather than a detrimental one, would be extremely difficult, because it probably wouldn't change the creature's life in any recognizable way.

The world is full of plants and animals. By now somebody should have found something that they can prove is evolution in process. Since they haven't, how in the world do we know for-a-fact that evolution even exists, since everything they have found so far fits adaptation and intelligent design better?

Evolution is a hoax. Evolution is a bunch of people making up a science fiction story about some things that they see in nature, but can't prove that their story is true.

[BADecker]

Besides, we still have cavemen around:

Mars is pretty darn "unlivable," FYI.

On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.

Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?

People do. It's called the sewers of N.Y., L.A., or Chicago, etc.

 

[Astargath]

We use the word "evolution" in different ways. For example, the Model T Ford evolved over many years into the variety of Ford vehicles that we have today. This, however, is not what is meant by evolution theory evolution (ETE). ETE does not match the evolution of Ford cars except in the simple way that both of them are change. The rest of ETE doesn't match what happened in Ford car evolution.

This is the same with nature, life, and the world around us. Certainly there is change. So, in that simple sense there is evolution, just like in Ford cars. The thing that has not been found in changes in the world around is a change from one species to another in nature. Yet that is exactly what is required for ETE to exist... along with a bunch of other changes.

Adaptation is not necessarily a learned trait. In fact, cause and effect highly suggests that it is built in rather than learned, and that the whole process of teaching and learning is the effect of causes. Teaching and learning follows complex laws of physics. We think they are simple because we don't understand much of the complexity. It just happens. But cause and effect dictates how it happens, and the ways the changes happen through learning. Training is set in place by cause and effect.

What does such training have to do with evolution? It is change... semantics. But it is not the kind of change talked about in ETE.

ETE is a hoax, i.e., evolution is a hoax.

I don’t understand what it is you need to find?

You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.

Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.

As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.

Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.

In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.

It isn't what I need to find. It is what you need to show me.

For example. You say, above, "It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust." Let's examine that statement from the pile of dust standpoint. You have a pile of dust, say, rust dust. Then you say, this pile of rust dust used to be a Mercedes Benz. But how do you know? It might have been a Chev or a Ford or a simple I-beam, or anyone of dozens of things.

With regard to evolution, there has to be a way to show that the pile of dust was evolution and not adaptation. Of course you can't show this by looking at things that have turned to dust. That's the whole point. find something that you can use to factually show evolution. Since things of the past won't show it - as you said - why do people keep on using fossils of the past to suggest that evolution is happening, when the past suggests adaptation way better... or nothing at all?

Another example. In this thread the post at - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg43890150#msg43890150 - Moloch shows this picture:



The picture shows a bunch of similarities between creatures in their development. What the picture doesn't show is the DNA differences. The DNA differences are always there. That's why the creatures turn into completely different types and species. It doesn't have anything to do with proving evolution. In other words, if evolution exists, the picture doesn't prove it one way or another. So, why use it? Get to the point and show the proof for evolution.

All the things you talk about in your post aren't proof of evolution. The whole thing shows adaptation, simple change, and intelligent design way better than it shows evolution, evolution which can't even be found for-a-fact.

One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one, and better than it was before. The mutation has to be in the DNA. It has to be very tiny - microscopic - because the odds are against big mutations, or multiple mutations, happening at once are too great.

This is the thing scientists have been looking for, for decades. They haven't found it. They might not recognize it if it stared them in the face. And proving that the mutation would be a beneficial one rather than a detrimental one, would be extremely difficult, because it probably wouldn't change the creature's life in any recognizable way.

The world is full of plants and animals. By now somebody should have found something that they can prove is evolution in process. Since they haven't, how in the world do we know for-a-fact that evolution even exists, since everything they have found so far fits adaptation and intelligent design better?

Evolution is a hoax. Evolution is a bunch of people making up a science fiction story about some things that they see in nature, but can't prove that their story is true.

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''
Here we go then, I just proved evolution to badecker:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731201531.htm

or
''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''
There you go, tow living creatures that are almost the same (humans) one of which has a rare protein mutation that shields him from cardiovascular disease, we won boys, pack it up!

[BADecker]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''
Here we go then, I just proved evolution to badecker:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731201531.htm

or
''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''
There you go, tow living creatures that are almost the same (humans) one of which has a rare protein mutation that shields him from cardiovascular disease, we won boys, pack it up!

You forget that simply showing that these things exist isn't proving that they are evolution, especially evolution theory evolution. We haven't gotten deeply enough into the "programming" of the various forms of cause and effect using the various forms of physics that exist. The whole thing is very complex, and we simply don't know if we have discovered it all, so that we can make a correct judgment.

Why do I say this? Because everything in your link can fit a complex form of adaptation rather than evolution. And it can fit adaptation much easier and better. On top of that, C&E shows that it is programming rather than random anything, like random selection.

Evolution might be a fun story, but nobody has shown that it really exists. When you keep on saying that evolution is a reality after you have been clearly shown that you don't know, you are attempting to promote and further a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.



EDIT: A gene that allows someone to function apparently equally well, on less sleep, is not known to NOT be detrimental to the person in other ways. If this gene is any kind of a mutation, it has not been shown to be a beneficial rather than detrimental mutation. It might simply be a trait. It might be devolution rather than evolution.

[Astargath]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''
Here we go then, I just proved evolution to badecker:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731201531.htm

or
''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''
There you go, tow living creatures that are almost the same (humans) one of which has a rare protein mutation that shields him from cardiovascular disease, we won boys, pack it up!

You forget that simply showing that these things exist isn't proving that they are evolution, especially evolution theory evolution. We haven't gotten deeply enough into the "programming" of the various forms of cause and effect using the various forms of physics that exist. The whole thing is very complex, and we simply don't know if we have discovered it all, so that we can make a correct judgement.

Why do I say this? Because everything in your link can fit a complex form of adaptation rather than evolution. And it can fit adaptation much easier and better. On top of that, C&E shows that it is programming rather than random anything, like random selection.

Evolution might be a fun story, but nobody has shown that it really exists. When you keep on saying that evolution is a reality after you have been clearly shown that you don't know, you are attempting to promote and further a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

You clearly said it would, though. I provided the examples you asked for, now you are saying it doesn't prove evolution but you just said it would.

[BADecker]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''
Here we go then, I just proved evolution to badecker:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731201531.htm

or
''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''
There you go, tow living creatures that are almost the same (humans) one of which has a rare protein mutation that shields him from cardiovascular disease, we won boys, pack it up!

You forget that simply showing that these things exist isn't proving that they are evolution, especially evolution theory evolution. We haven't gotten deeply enough into the "programming" of the various forms of cause and effect using the various forms of physics that exist. The whole thing is very complex, and we simply don't know if we have discovered it all, so that we can make a correct judgement.

Why do I say this? Because everything in your link can fit a complex form of adaptation rather than evolution. And it can fit adaptation much easier and better. On top of that, C&E shows that it is programming rather than random anything, like random selection.

Evolution might be a fun story, but nobody has shown that it really exists. When you keep on saying that evolution is a reality after you have been clearly shown that you don't know, you are attempting to promote and further a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

You clearly said it would, though. I provided the examples you asked for, now you are saying it doesn't prove evolution but you just said it would.

What? You are so silly. Now you want to base evolution on things that are said in this forum. How in the world more unreal can you get?

Where did you lose it? Was it in school? Were you so limited in your ability to think that the teacher made you wear a dunce cap in the corner, and now you don't care, because if you blab it, you totally think that it is correct?

You seem to be two-faced all in the same short post. You accept that I am saying a complete talk about evolution theory, you ignore parts of my post you don't like, you forget other parts of your own posts you have posted previously, etc.  Isn't it kinda time you sat in your rocking chair out on the porch with granny?

How in the world much are they paying you to spout all your self-contradictory nonsense with nothing to back it? The way you do it doesn't even make you a reasonable troll.

[Astargath]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''
Here we go then, I just proved evolution to badecker:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731201531.htm

or
''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''
There you go, tow living creatures that are almost the same (humans) one of which has a rare protein mutation that shields him from cardiovascular disease, we won boys, pack it up!

You forget that simply showing that these things exist isn't proving that they are evolution, especially evolution theory evolution. We haven't gotten deeply enough into the "programming" of the various forms of cause and effect using the various forms of physics that exist. The whole thing is very complex, and we simply don't know if we have discovered it all, so that we can make a correct judgement.

Why do I say this? Because everything in your link can fit a complex form of adaptation rather than evolution. And it can fit adaptation much easier and better. On top of that, C&E shows that it is programming rather than random anything, like random selection.

Evolution might be a fun story, but nobody has shown that it really exists. When you keep on saying that evolution is a reality after you have been clearly shown that you don't know, you are attempting to promote and further a hoax.

Evolution is a hoax.

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

You clearly said it would, though. I provided the examples you asked for, now you are saying it doesn't prove evolution but you just said it would.

What? You are so silly. Now you want to base evolution on things that are said in this forum. How in the world more unreal can you get?

Where did you lose it? Was it in school? Were you so limited in your ability to think that the teacher made you wear a dunce cap in the corner, and now you don't care, because if you blab it, you totally think that it is correct?

You seem to be two-faced all in the same short post. You accept that I am saying a complete talk about evolution theory, you ignore parts of my post you don't like, you forget other parts of your own posts you have posted previously, etc.  Isn't it kinda time you sat in your rocking chair out on the porch with granny?

How in the world much are they paying you to spout all your self-contradictory nonsense with nothing to back it? The way you do it doesn't even make you a reasonable troll.

So what does this mean ''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one'' ?

[BADecker]

So what does this mean ''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one'' ?

English is a difficult language at times. It's strange that you would ask me, of all people, what some English means.

Let's start with, ''One of the important things ..." This has several parts, depending on where you focus your line of thought for the moment. Lets focus on "One" first.

One of the important things... means that this is only one of more than one. Next, lets focus on "important."

One of the important things ... means that, as the dictionary definition of the word "important" says - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/important?s=t - "1. of much or great significance or consequence." Simply click the dictionary link to check out other meanings for this word. Not that  "important" is modifying "things." Now let's check out the word "thing."

One of the important things ... means "1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/things?s=t. You can click the link to check out other aspects of this meaning. Now let's see if we can get a sense for the words "of the."

One of the important things ... shows the relationship of "One" to "important things." "Important things" is plural. "Of the" shows the relations ship of the word before "of the" (one) to the words "important things" (plural)... in this case the number of important things being talked about.

Since that number is only one, and since the "important things" is plural, that means that there must be other important things, right? So, we have "One of the important things ..." shown in the rest of the part of the wording you supplied us with, but didn't seem to understand, yourself.

With regard to the evolution story, some of the other important things are found in my writing directly above, at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg44130813#msg44130813:

You forget that simply showing that these things exist isn't proving that they are evolution, especially evolution theory evolution. We haven't gotten deeply enough into the "programming" of the various forms of cause and effect using the various forms of physics that exist. The whole thing is very complex, and we simply don't know if we have discovered it all, so that we can make a correct judgment.

If you want to see the truth a little bit at least, you really need to slow down and absorb what is being said a little. You're a big enough boy that you can wipe your own nose. You don't always need a nursemaid to explain everything for you.

No proof for evolution as a fact.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

So what does this mean ''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one'' ?

English is a difficult language at times. It's strange that you would ask me, of all people, what some English means.

Let's start with, ''One of the important things ..." This has several parts, depending on where you focus your line of thought for the moment. Lets focus on "One" first.

One of the important things... means that this is only one of more than one. Next, lets focus on "important."

One of the important things ... means that, as the dictionary definition of the word "important" says - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/important?s=t - "1. of much or great significance or consequence." Simply click the dictionary link to check out other meanings for this word. Not that  "important" is modifying "things." Now let's check out the word "thing."

One of the important things ... means "1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/things?s=t. You can click the link to check out other aspects of this meaning. Now let's see if we can get a sense for the words "of the."

One of the important things ... shows the relationship of "One" to "important things." "Important things" is plural. "Of the" shows the relations ship of the word before "of the" (one) to the words "important things" (plural)... in this case the number of important things being talked about.

Since that number is only one, and since the "important things" is plural, that means that there must be other important things, right? So, we have "One of the important things ..." shown in the rest of the part of the wording you supplied us with, but didn't seem to understand, yourself.

With regard to the evolution story, some of the other important things are found in my writing directly above, at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg44130813#msg44130813:

You forget that simply showing that these things exist isn't proving that they are evolution, especially evolution theory evolution. We haven't gotten deeply enough into the "programming" of the various forms of cause and effect using the various forms of physics that exist. The whole thing is very complex, and we simply don't know if we have discovered it all, so that we can make a correct judgment.

If you want to see the truth a little bit at least, you really need to slow down and absorb what is being said a little. You're a big enough boy that you can wipe your own nose. You don't always need a nursemaid to explain everything for you.

No proof for evolution as a fact.

Evolution is a hoax.

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''

They discovered that some Humans have a mechanism that shields them from cardiovascular disease thanks to a protein mutation

Pack it up boys, we proved evolution to badecker! At least ''one important thing'' that he thought didn't exist. We won!

[Pine Forest]

Evolution is a social engineering tool used by the monetary elite to make the working class to believe in some eternal struggle and competition against one another so that the elite can maintain power. It's not scientific at all except in terms of great propaganda and the conditioning to it starts at a very young age. Little children are shown pictures of a monkey changing to become a man and they believe it. They could show them a picture of a world standing on a giant turtle and they would believe it as well and most of them would still hold on to that reality as they grow up and argue against another possibilities just because they are afraid of the real reality.

[BADecker]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''

They discovered that some Humans have a mechanism that shields them from cardiovascular disease thanks to a protein mutation

Pack it up boys, we proved evolution to badecker! At least ''one important thing'' that he thought didn't exist. We won!

What they haven't proven - even if this is the absolute, straight-forward truth - is that the mutations involved have anything to do with evolution rather than adaptation. Adaptation exists all over the place. But evolution has not been proven, yet.

However, I thank you for showing us all that you agree that I am an authority on evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''

They discovered that some Humans have a mechanism that shields them from cardiovascular disease thanks to a protein mutation

Pack it up boys, we proved evolution to badecker! At least ''one important thing'' that he thought didn't exist. We won!

What they haven't proven - even if this is the absolute, straight-forward truth - is that the mutations involved have anything to do with evolution rather than adaptation. Adaptation exists all over the place. But evolution has not been proven, yet.

However, I thank you for showing us all that you agree that I am an authority on evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

I don't think you even understand what adaption is. You can call a mutation adaption if you want but in the end as the ''mutation or adaption'' is passed down from one generation to the next. As more and more organisms inherit the mutation, the mutation becomes a typical part of the species, what you might call EVOLUTION!! HURRAY!

Then you have speciation, which is a very wide term but this video might help you: it's good even for kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmtIofdeUbc&feature=youtu.be

[BADecker]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''

They discovered that some Humans have a mechanism that shields them from cardiovascular disease thanks to a protein mutation

Pack it up boys, we proved evolution to badecker! At least ''one important thing'' that he thought didn't exist. We won!

What they haven't proven - even if this is the absolute, straight-forward truth - is that the mutations involved have anything to do with evolution rather than adaptation. Adaptation exists all over the place. But evolution has not been proven, yet.

However, I thank you for showing us all that you agree that I am an authority on evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

I don't think you even understand what adaption is. You can call a mutation adaption if you want but in the end as the ''mutation or adaption'' is passed down from one generation to the next. As more and more organisms inherit the mutation, the mutation becomes a typical part of the species, what you might call EVOLUTION!! HURRAY!

Then you have speciation, which is a very wide term but this video might help you: it's good even for kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmtIofdeUbc&feature=youtu.be

I don't think you really know what adaption is. Adaption has to do with social changes, and how people, particularly children, learn to integrate changing customs/traditions into their social lives.

Adaptation has to do with natural selection, which nobody knows the underlying workings of... how cause and effect program change into something at a level and complexity we can't comprehend.

Scientists are kinda smart. But they seem to be unwilling to accept that, if evolution exists, the selections made by nature are infinitely smarter than they are. After all, we see nature making complex life and reproduction in ways we can only dream of, because we can't do it at all. This means that we don't really understand what natural selection is, but only that it exists and produces certain kinds of things/results.

Since we don't really know how natural selection works or what it is made up of, we can't really understand that there is any evolution for-a-fact.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

''One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one''

''Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease''

They discovered that some Humans have a mechanism that shields them from cardiovascular disease thanks to a protein mutation

Pack it up boys, we proved evolution to badecker! At least ''one important thing'' that he thought didn't exist. We won!

What they haven't proven - even if this is the absolute, straight-forward truth - is that the mutations involved have anything to do with evolution rather than adaptation. Adaptation exists all over the place. But evolution has not been proven, yet.

However, I thank you for showing us all that you agree that I am an authority on evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

I don't think you even understand what adaption is. You can call a mutation adaption if you want but in the end as the ''mutation or adaption'' is passed down from one generation to the next. As more and more organisms inherit the mutation, the mutation becomes a typical part of the species, what you might call EVOLUTION!! HURRAY!

Then you have speciation, which is a very wide term but this video might help you: it's good even for kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmtIofdeUbc&feature=youtu.be

I don't think you really know what adaption is. Adaption has to do with social changes, and how people, particularly children, learn to integrate changing customs/traditions into their social lives.

Adaptation has to do with natural selection, which nobody knows the underlying workings of... how cause and effect program change into something at a level and complexity we can't comprehend.

Scientists are kinda smart. But they seem to be unwilling to accept that, if evolution exists, the selections made by nature are infinitely smarter than they are. After all, we see nature making complex life and reproduction in ways we can only dream of, because we can't do it at all. This means that we don't really understand what natural selection is, but only that it exists and produces certain kinds of things/results.

Since we don't really know how natural selection works or what it is made up of, we can't really understand that there is any evolution for-a-fact.

Evolution is a hoax.

Well I just gave you an example of what you asked for and you are still not convinced, pretty much like when notbatman asks for something, I deliver and then he says, nope, that's not enough.

''we see nature making complex life and reproduction in ways we can only dream of, because we can't do it at all.'' Nature isn't ''smarter'' than us, complexity arrives from simple rules, we know that. Just because it takes a lot of time, it doesn't mean we can't do it. Humans have been creating things that are more complex than themselves for decades now, a computer for instance. As always it depends on your definition of complexity but natural selection is pretty easy to understand, I don't know what you mean.

So what is evolution then, in your head? You don't accept evolution as:

Speciation: Gave you examples of that, you still think that's not evolution, somehow.

Beneficial mutations that can be passed through generations: You still don't think that's evolution either

Do you mind explaining to us what you think evolution is then? So we can give you an example and end this debate? Or are you going to ignore the evidence like you always do again?