Evolution is a hoax

[mOgliE]

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

What?
But... Adaptation IS evolution.
That's like literaly the same thing.
Evolution is the selection of species based on what is most adapted to its environment...

What would be the difference between adaptation and evolution for you? Because evolution is EXACTLY adaptation but on bigger time frames.

[Astargath]

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

What?
But... Adaptation IS evolution.
That's like literaly the same thing.
Evolution is the selection of species based on what is most adapted to its environment...

What would be the difference between adaptation and evolution for you? Because evolution is EXACTLY adaptation but on bigger time frames.

He is a knucklehead, I explained that to him like 20 times. Adaption through generations is evolution. Yes adaption itself is not evolution if it happens once and it's not passed through generations but since it is passed many times, it is evolution.

[mOgliE]

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

What?
But... Adaptation IS evolution.
That's like literaly the same thing.
Evolution is the selection of species based on what is most adapted to its environment...

What would be the difference between adaptation and evolution for you? Because evolution is EXACTLY adaptation but on bigger time frames.

He is a knucklehead, I explained that to him like 20 times. Adaption through generations is evolution. Yes adaption itself is not evolution if it happens once and it's not passed through generations but since it is passed many times, it is evolution.

Yeah that's like... The basic definition!
If some parts of the species adapt well to an environment they will have more offsprings hence spreading their genes faster hence it leads to the evolution os the species Oo

If you accept adaptation BADecker then you accept evolution for the simple reason that they are the same thing.

Or be my guest and define what is different between adaptation and evolution...

[BADecker]

We need a reason to believe evolution. We need some example of it happening that is not just words... and not simply some engineered genetics. Here's what we need.

We need Critter A that we think evolved into Critter B. Then we need the DNA of Critter A, and the changed DNA of it's offspring, baby Critter A+. Then we need the DNA from the grandchild - baby Critter A++. We need the whole line of DNA, showing how the changes came about, until it was finally Critter B.

We don't have anything close to the above.

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

But, even if we DID find one critter that changed into another, we would still have to find a whole bunch of them to even begin to suggest that evolution is the way present-day critters - plants and animals - came about.

We are so far from this that we might as well say...

Evolution is a hoax.

If only we could document the spontaneous generation of just 1 complex life form then you would prove evolution is a hoax and god is real, unfortunately we have 0 examples of spontaneous generation like god supposedly did it and we have thousands of examples of evolution.

This doesn't really even make sense.

We don't know if God used spontaneous generation or not. All we know is that God is the Cause for life and everything else. God made it all. How He did it is not known, scientifically or otherwise, other than that He spoke it all into existence.

The only examples of critters changing from one kind to another is in the words of people. We have no proven examples of it. The only science used that might come close to proof is political science, which includes the use of lies when necessary, to make the politics work. The basic proof for evolution we would need is shown here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg49036647#msg49036647 - which is quoted above.

Everything we have so far can be explained by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. We don't have one thing where a critter changes into another critter, naturally.

What?
But... Adaptation IS evolution.
That's like literaly the same thing.
Evolution is the selection of species based on what is most adapted to its environment...

What would be the difference between adaptation and evolution for you? Because evolution is EXACTLY adaptation but on bigger time frames.

He is a knucklehead, I explained that to him like 20 times. Adaption through generations is evolution. Yes adaption itself is not evolution if it happens once and it's not passed through generations but since it is passed many times, it is evolution.

Yeah that's like... The basic definition!
If some parts of the species adapt well to an environment they will have more offsprings hence spreading their genes faster hence it leads to the evolution os the species Oo

If you accept adaptation BADecker then you accept evolution for the simple reason that they are the same thing.

Or be my guest and define what is different between adaptation and evolution...

Again, there are countless forms and methods of adaptation that are not evolution in the sense of this thread. Evolution has no proof for its existence. It has a lot of talk behind it, but no proof.

In addition, if evolution existed, why would it have to be adaptation? It wouldn't, necessarily. The words natural selection indicate some choice involved. Choice doesn't always have to be adaptation.

In all this talk, what is and where is the proof that evolution exists, and that the observations that many people call evolution are really evolution, and not something else without evolution? After all, the word evolution can mean something like the industrial evolution. But that is not the kind of evolution we are talking about. We are talking about a kind of evolution where one kind of plant or animal changes into another, completely different, kind. This doesn't exist. Show the proof that the adaptation is this kind of evolution, and not simple change, the programming for which is built right in the DNA, etc.

Evolution is a hoax.

[mOgliE]

Again, there are countless forms and methods of adaptation that are not evolution in the sense of this thread. Evolution has no proof for its existence. It has a lot of talk behind it, but no proof.

In addition, if evolution existed, why would it have to be adaptation? It wouldn't, necessarily. The words natural selection indicate some choice involved. Choice doesn't always have to be adaptation.

In all this talk, what is and where is the proof that evolution exists, and that the observations that many people call evolution are really evolution, and not something else without evolution? After all, the word evolution can mean something like the industrial evolution. But that is not the kind of evolution we are talking about. We are talking about a kind of evolution where one kind of plant or animal changes into another, completely different, kind. This doesn't exist. Show the proof that the adaptation is this kind of evolution, and not simple change, the programming for which is built right in the DNA, etc.

Evolution is a hoax.

You haven't define the difference you make between evolution and adaptation. If you don't we can't discuss because from my point of view you're just saying "blue isn't really blue there is no proof that blue is blue".

Evolution = adaptation of a species to its environment over the course of time.

If you want to talk about something else you'll have to define what you mean by evolution or adaptation.

[BADecker]

Again, there are countless forms and methods of adaptation that are not evolution in the sense of this thread. Evolution has no proof for its existence. It has a lot of talk behind it, but no proof.

In addition, if evolution existed, why would it have to be adaptation? It wouldn't, necessarily. The words natural selection indicate some choice involved. Choice doesn't always have to be adaptation.

In all this talk, what is and where is the proof that evolution exists, and that the observations that many people call evolution are really evolution, and not something else without evolution? After all, the word evolution can mean something like the industrial evolution. But that is not the kind of evolution we are talking about. We are talking about a kind of evolution where one kind of plant or animal changes into another, completely different, kind. This doesn't exist. Show the proof that the adaptation is this kind of evolution, and not simple change, the programming for which is built right in the DNA, etc.

Evolution is a hoax.

You haven't define the difference you make between evolution and adaptation. If you don't we can't discuss because from my point of view you're just saying "blue isn't really blue there is no proof that blue is blue".

Evolution = adaptation of a species to its environment over the course of time.

If you want to talk about something else you'll have to define what you mean by evolution or adaptation.

Simply, adaptation is programmed - DNA programming - rules for change, so that the adapting creature can fit environment changes.

Evolution is the change from one kind of creature to another.

Cause and effect show that everything in the universe is programmed, including the way we think. Since we have been programmed to think one way or another, there absolutely can't be any evolution without changing the definition of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

[mOgliE]

Simply, adaptation is programmed - DNA programming - rules for change, so that the adapting creature can fit environment changes.

Evolution is the change from one kind of creature to another.

Cause and effect show that everything in the universe is programmed, including the way we think. Since we have been programmed to think one way or another, there absolutely can't be any evolution without changing the definition of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Ok you're dumb and put on ignore. Cheers.

[BADecker]

Simply, adaptation is programmed - DNA programming - rules for change, so that the adapting creature can fit environment changes.

Evolution is the change from one kind of creature to another.

Cause and effect show that everything in the universe is programmed, including the way we think. Since we have been programmed to think one way or another, there absolutely can't be any evolution without changing the definition of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Ok you're dumb and put on ignore. Cheers.

Look. All you need to do is show one instance of proof that evolution theory evolution exists. If you don't or can't show the proof, you are only making yourself look foolish, right?

[mOgliE]

Look. All you need to do is show one instance of proof that evolution theory evolution exists. If you don't or can't show the proof, you are only making yourself look foolish, right?

Peppered moth is the most known.

Before industrial revolution the moth was white. After the industrial revolution, the moth became brown, if that's not evolution then what is it?

[BADecker]

Look. All you need to do is show one instance of proof that evolution theory evolution exists. If you don't or can't show the proof, you are only making yourself look foolish, right?

Peppered moth is the most known.

Before industrial revolution the moth was white. After the industrial revolution, the moth became brown, if that's not evolution then what is it?

That's simply a form of adaptation without evolution. At best regarding evolution, it might be a form of devolution.

[michaelkelly8798]

Simply, adaptation is programmed - DNA programming - rules for change, so that the adapting creature can fit environment changes.

Evolution is the change from one kind of creature to another.

Cause and effect show that everything in the universe is programmed, including the way we think. Since we have been programmed to think one way or another, there absolutely can't be any evolution without changing the definition of evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Ok you're dumb and put on ignore. Cheers.

You seem be be a guy that is well versed in the field. Adaptation and evolution are very similar, species evolve to adapt to the environment that's totally accurate, we grow calluses as an example. BUT.. There's no macro evolution. So my question to you is.. Why are you so certain macro-evolution exists?? Since you are the science guy and this theory of evolution hasn't been tested to be truth yet why do you have so much certainty??

Please do a google search on the many scientific theories that were falsified. And then respond to my question.

From my point of view you're argument is similar to "frogs are born from mud" (which also was also a theory before a guy named Louis Pasteur said, this is not true, we have observed and reproduced the event. this is false, we can prove it with this experiment (which was then reproduced by other scientists)).  Now tell me how have you observed macro evolution?

[mOgliE]

Look. All you need to do is show one instance of proof that evolution theory evolution exists. If you don't or can't show the proof, you are only making yourself look foolish, right?

Peppered moth is the most known.

Before industrial revolution the moth was white. After the industrial revolution, the moth became brown, if that's not evolution then what is it?

That's simply a form of adaptation without evolution. At best regarding evolution, it might be a form of devolution.

You don't make any sense. A whole species saw a gene being replace by another gene. If that's not the definition of evolution then stop fooling around and give a proper definition of evolution.

Cambridge definition of evolution:
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years

This example fits perfectly the Cambridge definition. If you have a definition on your own bring it here or stop talking in the void.

[mOgliE]

There's no macro evolution. So my question to you is.. Why are you so certain macro-evolution exists??

My answer to you is: there is nothing like macro evolution and no scientist defends something as macro evolution I don't even know what you mean by macro evolution.

Until you define what you mean by the term macro evolution I can't help you because for me macro evolution isn't a scientific concept.

[BADecker]

There's no macro evolution. So my question to you is.. Why are you so certain macro-evolution exists??

My answer to you is: there is nothing like macro evolution and no scientist defends something as macro evolution I don't even know what you mean by macro evolution.

Until you define what you mean by the term macro evolution I can't help you because for me macro evolution isn't a scientific concept.

Macroevolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.

[mOgliE]

Macroevolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.

The term macroevolution fell into a certain disfavour when it was taken over by writers such as the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their theories of orthogenesis.

Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[9] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.

Macroevolution isn't a scientific concept, it's just a word to make discussions easier to distinguish big or small time scale.

Macro evolution = micro evolution multiple times = evolution

[BADecker]

Macroevolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.

The term macroevolution fell into a certain disfavour when it was taken over by writers such as the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their theories of orthogenesis.

Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[9] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.

Macroevolution isn't a scientific concept, it's just a word to make discussions easier to distinguish big or small time scale.

Macro evolution = micro evolution multiple times = evolution

Now you are talking about evolution theory evolution.     

[michaelkelly8798]

There's no macro evolution. So my question to you is.. Why are you so certain macro-evolution exists??

My answer to you is: there is nothing like macro evolution and no scientist defends something as macro evolution I don't even know what you mean by macro evolution.

Until you define what you mean by the term macro evolution I can't help you because for me macro evolution isn't a scientific concept.

You don't need to have a concept for macro evolution, you don't need to be so smart to read this between the lines, I'm talking about your believe human evolves from monkeys. I'm not talking about adaptation (to make it easier for you to understand) like grown a callus. I mean how have you observed a human growing hair like an animal to adapt to cold environments or something similar?

[mOgliE]

Now you are talking about evolution theory evolution.     

I'm just using YOUR source to explain why you're wwrong on considering macroevolution is a thing.

You still haven't defined evolution or adaptation but still claim they're different and one is acceptable but not the other...

[mOgliE]

You don't need to have a concept for macro evolution, you don't need to be so smart to read this between the lines, I'm talking about your believe human evolves from monkeys. I'm not talking about adaptation (to make it easier for you to understand) like grown a callus. I mean how have you observed a human growing hair like an animal to adapt to cold environments or something similar?

A human wouldn't grow hair to adapt to cold environment... That wouldn't be possible what are you even talking about?
And evolution being a process that takes thousands of generations in most cases no one have ever seen it on humans with his bear eyes...

For the monkeys part that's also completely false. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys I don't know in which school you went but you're clearly lacking some HUGE part of the scientific biological knowledge.

[michaelkelly8798]

You don't need to have a concept for macro evolution, you don't need to be so smart to read this between the lines, I'm talking about your believe human evolves from monkeys. I'm not talking about adaptation (to make it easier for you to understand) like grown a callus. I mean how have you observed a human growing hair like an animal to adapt to cold environments or something similar?

A human wouldn't grow hair to adapt to cold environment... That wouldn't be possible what are you even talking about?
And evolution being a process that takes thousands of generations in most cases no one have ever seen it on humans with his bear eyes...

For the monkeys part that's also completely false. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys I don't know in which school you went but you're clearly lacking some HUGE part of the scientific biological knowledge.

I know its impossible, I'm just trying to understand how far you can go with this of evolution. How can you tell this happens every x amount of years, have you lived that long? If you haven't lived that long, and this is a phenomenon that can't be observed it can't even be called science, you need to experiment and make observations in order to prove a hypothesis right. I just want to know why you are so certain this is true?

There seem to be different types of evolutionist based on what I can read from your message. I've been hearing men and primate have similar bone structures, arms, chromosomes and a whole lot more fallacies. I'd like to see how good your biological knowledge is, what did man evolve from? what's your side of the story?