Many browsers of conspiracy reject macro-evolution entirely. Because there's no proof or evidence that it happens - at all. There's been tons of forged evidence that's been debunked over the years (Piltdown man etc) - Add these frauds to a total lack of fossil evidence. And the fact that we've never seen one species give birth to another - it has literally never happened. People seem to just want to believe it's true because it's a simple answer to annoying question of, "How did we get here?"

Sorry probably not the response you were looking for, but discovering fraud in science is one of my favorite topics. Cheers, hope you have a good one.

And then there's the fact that we've never seen one species give birth to another - it has literally never happened.

Thanks for making it clear that you don't know anything about the theory of evoultion.

LOL. I read that shit and was lo iike, "the motherfuckin fuck?" swaggy p face

We've never observed it and there's no proof it's ever happened

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html

are the cartoon drawings of the viruses what convinced you?

Apparently they didn't dumb it down enough for you.

If you're using a money grab hoax like Piltdown as your criteria for dismissing the theory of evolution, then obviously anything Matt Moneymaker has been involved with dismisses the existence of Bigfoot and the Shroud of Turin dismisses the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Piltdown wasn't just a money grab - Look into Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and everything else he was involved in. I'm not religious so I guess better luck drawing in someone else by attacking Jesus.

For a non religious person you sure do repeat a lot of Young Earth Creationist fallacies.

and for a conspiracy user you sure to seem to love mainstream bullshit :)

Just because I find this stuff interesting doesn't mean I find any of it credible.

So you come here to a community where skepticism and open-minded is encouraged just to... bully people?

Disagreeing with you is not attacking or bullying you. Presenting you with evidence or refutation to your fantastic claims is not harassing you. You are not a victim in this marketplace of ideas.

Oh, I guess you don't realize what you're doing

Holy shit the fact you wrote that out considering the way you are acting in this thread is the most hypocritical thing I have seen all day!

Evolution is pseudo-science - it's a philosophical claim that nincompoops claim has scientific backing - which it does not :)

And he uses an ad hominem in response to accusing other of being rude....

Please stop spamming all my replies with your nonsense. You are not debating me, you are merely contradicting me. And jumping all over various comment chains to do it - Take a look at your behavior and maybe go play outside for a while. You seem to be taking this personally.

My apologies. I just dont like it when people lie and purposely push anti intellectualism.

Youre free Ive blocked you so I dont have to see you spreading anymore lies.

It's not anti-intellectualism - it's the truth. Anyone is free to go look - But intellectuals already know there's no proof evolution is real at all - it's a philosophical claim. No basis in reality or in science.

Lads, let's just call a spade a spade.

Liar.

So you come here to a community where skepticism and open-minded is encouraged just to

What community is that?

Jesus is fake. So is evolution.

Thanks for acknowledging Bigfoot is real!

If you're interested how human morphology and behavior can be altered over time by technology, check out Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. It presents the hypothesis that mastering fire and cooking food to get the maximum nutritional value out it has altered not only our brain size, teeth, and digestive tract, but also our social structures. It's an interesting read.

Many browsers of conspiracy reject macro-evolution entirely.

You dont speak for the sub lol

Dogs may have come from wolves, and all breeds of dogs may have a common ancestral type, but I dispute, for instance, that cats and dogs have a common ancestor. Or that humans came from monkeys.

What about the laryngeal nerve or mitochondria?

And then there's the fact that we've never seen one species give birth to another - it has literally never happened.

Why would it?

Have you ever seen a person give birth to a child with features that neither parent has?

That guy wont respond, which is unfortunate.

One of my pet peeves is anti intellectualism and I have plenty of free time doing IT work to find people who plain old ignore what is right in front of them.

I'm guessing that by your tone, you understand that there's no evidence for macro-evolution, and that it's a totally spurious philosophical point of view - not rooted in science of observation at all. Thanks for your tacit admission :)

There are example of macroevolution, not sure why you believe there arent. Heres a few I found very easily.

• In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.

• A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis.

Fossil record show macroevolution.

But no you cant see it in real time. It would be like saying "I cant see a tree grow in real time therefore trees do not grow"

So you have no response to the laryngeal nerve, mitochondria or the example of parents having children with mutations?

Adaptations are not evolution - I guess that would explain why you're confused :)

Im not confused.

Could you please respond to any of the points I have made.

You should also look up what adaptation means in an evolutionary context lol

Adaptation is not the same as macro-evolution, it's that simple :)

There's no evidence macro-evolution has ever happened - there are only adaptations and some variations which people have to apply the philosophy of evolution to. Without assumptions, there is no evidence.

Adaptation is not the same as macro-evolution, it's that simple :)

Explain to me what an adaptation is, if you could. I think that is where the issue is.

So you concede the other points I have made, right? You have made zero effort to explain why all mammals have a laryngeal nerve in the location that they do. Or that all cells have mitochondria.

Can you explain those or will you continue to ignore them?

You seem to be very confused about the nature of science and the burden of proof.

When people come up with a fantastic story, or "theory" as they are sometimes called - it's up to them to defend it and justify it. It's very obvious to me and many others that macro-evolution is totally false, because there is no proof it has ever happened.

Just because different living things have different characteristics does not mean they all evolved these things - you have put the cart before the horse. Instead of looking for proof of your theory, you are assuming it's true, then using minor details of reality to prove it - when in fact it's not proof at all.

Tell me, what scientific experiment with dependent and independent variables has ever been conducted to test or observe macro-evolution? It's never been done, and hundreds of years after it was first formed, it's still a theory - because it's bullshit and there is no proof its real :)

You seem to be very confused about the nature of science and the burden of proof.

No not at all, lets stay on subject. You resort to attacks quite frequently when there is no need for it.

When people come up with a fantastic story, or "theory" as they are sometimes called - it's up to them to defend it and justify it. It's very obvious to me and many others that macro-evolution is totally false, because there is no proof it has ever happened.

I gave you two examples and you erroneously labeled them as an adaptation. The fact that you refuse to clarify or exaplin tells me you realize your faux pas and would rather move the conversation forward than have to address it.

Youre refusal to address any of my other points also tells you are stumped and cant come up with a reasonable explanation so again you would rather avoid them.

The rest of your comment is just a rehash of your earlier points which have mostly been addressed.

You are being purposely obtuse because you cant support your claims so you verbally attack others and shift the conversation away from your failing points.

Here is some additional reading

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368115001065

Testing hypotheses in macroevolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4721102/

Experimental macroevolution

Those two papers tackle macroevolution and how we can test and verify them.

Now, could you please (THis is the 4th time I have asked) explain to me the laryngeal nerve, mitochondria, genetic variation and the meaning of adaptation?

As I have explained, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not sure why you think you have any power here - power to force me to answer questions, power of authority - you are just another reddit user.

The burden of proof is on people claiming evolution is real, and they have not met it - and they cannot, because evolution is just a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

As I have explained, the burden of proof isn't on me.

Thats a weird way of saying you have no supporting evidence to support your claims...

Just saying the burden isnt on you doesnt absolve you from even responding to arguments. Its a bullshit deflection for people who arent familiar with the subject matter.

Just say you dont know.

I'm not sure why you think you have any power here - power to force me to answer questions, power of authority - you are just another reddit user.

All I can do is point out the problems with your claims. I cant force you to support your claims or force you to explain your hilariously wrong position.

The burden of proof is on people claiming evolution is real, and they have not met it - and they cannot, because evolution is just a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

You havent bothered to address a single point I have raised, you havent bothered to look at the information I have given.

Its like you asked someone for the time then have your hands over your ears going lalalalalala and then complaining that no one will tell you what time it is.

So no I cant force you to listen to my evidence and I cant force you to explain yourself.

Later.

What evidence? All you do is contradict me and spam quote replies. Stalking me all over other comment chains and accusing me of various dishonest things. Maybe take a break and stop harassing strangers on the internet? Have a nice day.

I have been following this whole chain. I don't understand how you say he has not provided any proof but just scrolling up u/eat_shit_and_live has provided 2 legit articles that are the scientific proof you are so positive that doesn't exist. You have refused to debate him at all and just claim that he has to answer you but you don't have to answer him. Why even comment if you refuse to have an actual debate and just spend the whole time deflecting?

He is just gonna say the burden isnt on him, the burden to support his arguments or the burden of looking at your arguments.

He literally doesnt give a shit

He has not provided any proof - he was merely contradicting me. I'm not deflecting, his "points" just aren't relevant and he did not address my key points. He just kept attempting to bully and belittle me, to distract others from the primary argument - which has never been addressed or refuted. That there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT ALL for evolution and that it's merely a philosophical claim that is disguised as science. Other users have commented on his type of behavior in this thread as well - go look. Cheers hope you have a nice day.

He has not provided any proof - he was merely contradicting me.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHH DUDE WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GOOD???????? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OMG I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING SO IDIOTIC IN MY WHOLE ENTIRE LIFE.

coff coff

Are you sure you are not religious? Hahah, literally everything you said in this thread shows the contrary.

his "points" just aren't relevant

Yeah, fuck his arguments because I think so. Makes sense, right? No, it doesn't. Get over it, you are wrong and you have been burned this whole thread over your ignorance.

he did not address my key statements

Because all your assumptions about Evolution are ridiculously wrong. Not even a toddler makes this bunch of wrong assumptions. But I can't wait for you to say "you have been looking at this wrong.......... because I said so" lmao.

He just kept attempting to bully and belittle me

That's a lie, he was completely respectful. You just got your feelings hurt because of your own ignorance. Not our fault you're not educated enough on the subject and can't even read about it to realize that. Even if people literally show it to your face (as they did).

to distract others from the primary argument - which has never been addressed or refuted

Because you literally DO NOT understand Evolution. You can't even back up your own (wrong) assumptions about it, you just dismiss it without looking at the evidence and facts like a religious person would do.

That there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT ALL (sorry, wikipedia articles don't count my friend)

My goodness, he literally linked you up with TWO scientific sources that are NOT from wikipedia. But you didn't read so you wouldn't know.

that it's merely a philosophical claim that is disguised as science.

You haven't been able to back up this claim - because it is pure bullshit and has literally been proven in this thread to you. If you choose to ignore and stay ignorance it's your own fault. It's just said how brainwashed/religious mind you are tbh.

Other users have commented on his type of behavior in this thread as well - go loo

GO READ DUDE. OPEN A BOOK FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER - that's not a fairy tale like the bible.

Cheers hope you have a nice day.

Yeah you too, hope you read a book for once in your life. Don't be afraid to admit to yourself that you've been wrong. Just move on and keep learning and not denying reality because it hurts your feelings.

This is abusive and harassing - you have no interest here and your only goal is attack me and try to assert that I'm dumb. No thanks - please go away, I have no interest in discussing anything with you - you seem to be trolling.

Once again, I'm not religious at all in any way - evolution is a religious notion. It's not scientific in the least, it's never happened, there's no proof it's ever happened - that's just reality. If you believe in evolution, it's a religious belief. Have a good day and please stop stalking and harassing people on the internet :)

your only goal is attack me and try to assert that I'm dumb

I have nothing to do with that, they're your words.

It's not scientific in the least, it's never happened, there's no proof it's ever happened

You keep saying this and people keep showing you evidence and then you repeat it as if it's some kind of "proof". Laughable.

btw quoting and showing facts is not harassing lmao

I would argue that spamming several comment threads without contributing, merely trying to attack me - certainly is harassment. Please stop harassing me and leave me alone :)

Have a good day

Read a book and stop thinking like a toddler.

I've read lots of books - stop harassing me :)

Removed. Rule 4. First warning.

Make your point without resorting to personal attacks.

Adaptations are not evolution

They are a product of natural selection - an evolutionary mechanism. Evolution is descent with modification.

Right - claiming things are "evolution" is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. No basis in reality. Thanks for your admission.

I’m sorry but you seem to be missing the fundamental knowledge of evolution. Evolution is quite simply a change in allele frequency in a population over time. When more of a species with a certain characteristic (blue eyes, larger, more brightly colored, etc) reproduce and make offspring with those same characteristics, over time it changes the percentage of the population with those alleles. This is microevolution. Microevolution over a large time scale is macroevolution.

Eye color changes over time for some people - it's not just a factor of "alleles" as is claimed. This is true for just about everything that is claimed to be "genetic" - there are other factors as well - which are not controlled for.

Macro-evolution is the idea that a species can spontaneously arise from another species - which is completely false. I understand it fine, I just don't believe it - because there's no evidence at all.

That is not macroevolution. You have a misunderstanding of the concept.

Imagine a population. A mutation occurs and the individual who has this mutation has increased fitness. So the mutation is beneficial and stays. Now if this mutation in hereditary it continues to new generations and then becomes a common aspect of the species. Over millions of years and many thousands or millions of mutations, the population now is genetically a different species from the species 10 million years ago. This is macroevolution. I’m sorry but you are not correct in your definition.

one species cannot come from another - things reproduce their own kind. Doesn't matter how big you make the time scale, there are no known mechanisms that explain how the world was populated by so many diverse life forms. Evolution is one inadequate attempt to explain the world away - sorry, it doesn't work. There's no evidence to back it up, it's just an empty philosophical claim.

There is an abundance of evidence if you just look. Things do reproduce their own kind. I agree with you there. But that offspring is always SLIGHTLY different than it’s parent. Those slight changes lead to a new species over time. Mutation also plays a key role. I cannot convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced. You want evidence of evolution, look up sympatric or allopatric speciation, research genetic drift. I can’t learn for you.

So you admit there's no evidence that one species can come from another?

Not spontaneously like you are trying to say. One species never directly births what is classified as a separate species. But over time a population can change enough genetically to be essentially incompatible with the original population or another geographically isolated population.

If there's no proof it's ever happened - just adding a large time scale to the event doesn't make it a good explanation. There's no way for any of us humans to verify or test something that's alleged to have taken millions of years. Totally ridiculous - not scientific.

Evolution is really just a philosophy - or a "scientific theory" - it is not science. It is not real - it is not truth. You can believe it if you want to, but the total lack of evidence, and the presence of only this type of theoretical explanation is quite telling IMO.

Actually there is. We cannot in a single lifetime observe this process in large organisms with long lifespans or long gestation periods. We observe this process often in microorganisms. The flu virus for example, can evolve into a new strain of itself almost yearly.

Sorry, but if viruses aren't even technically alive, then why do you believe calling their changes evolution? More important and more directly, why would you assume that humans do the same thing?

Why would you assume one thing can change over time and another can’t. A virus is one type of microorganism. Bacteria have been observed evolving. E. coli for example. Protista have been observed undergoing the same process.

They have been observed adapting to their circumstances, as has just about all life. They have never been observed to change into another species completely, which is what evolution requires.

Uhhh we have a word for the changes in adaptations for species.

We call it evolution

I've addressed this a number of times in this thread already.

What we are debating here is macro-evolution, or the idea that species come from other species. There is no evidence for this. I agree that lifeforms adapt to their circumstances over time - this is not the same thing as evolution.

I truly think you believe evolution is spontaneously birthing a new species similar to a pokemon evolving.

I truly think you're not here to have a real discussion if that's how you're trying to characterize my position :)

Then please tell me how you are explaining that you believe in microevolution, which you even said since you agree species adapt to their environment, yet you deny macroevolution which many biologists define as microevolution over a large time scale.

All lifeform change and adapt according to their environment. I agree with this, we can all observe it.

However, species do not spontaneously generate other species by means of natural selection. This has never happened and presumably will never happen, and there is no evidence it has. And there is plenty of evidence that this line of reasoning is faulty and ridiculous.

You are absolutely correct that species do not spontaneously create other species. This is a fundamental flaw in your logic. Someone taught you all of the classic misconceptions in evolution. Here’s what you are missing. There is a common ancestor between two species, we will call them A and B. Well over time let’s say the common ancestor had 2 populations split geographically. Now the populations mutate independently of each other. 5 million years later the species are 5% different in their genetic code. This is not a lot but what if it means the two groups cannot interbreed due to the 5 % difference. They would be classified as two separate species.

Adding huge timespans doesn't make the conjecture any more scientific - it's still conjecture based on observation. Not based on the scientific method or science, just observations and speculation. Evolution isn't science, it's a fairytale with scientific wrappings.

Actually adding large timespan is the key. It allows more mutation, more genetic drift. More differences. Here’s an analogy

My daughter is growing up every day in imperceptible ways (analogous to mutation) and I do not notice it. If I look back at pictures of her a month ago she is extremely similar with small differences. But compare that to the photos of her at a day old and she is worlds different. This is where the timespan factors into play. Each mutation in a species is imperceptible. 1 million of them however, that’s huge. It takes tome for this many changes to occur though so I do not comprehend why you are falsely saying the enlarged timescale is meaningless.

Your daughter is maturing - your daughter is not changing into something completely different, which is the claim we are actually addressing.

Evolution claims that speciation occurs gradually due to genetic differences - this has never been witnessed and there is no direct proof of this. Therefore it is not sound science - it's merely a fairytale that people claim is scientific.

You ever hear of hybrid speciation? It’s the process in which hybrids of two species become its own species. It has been observed in many species, including a dolphin. He Clymene dolphin genetically is the result of a hybridization of the spinner dolphin and the striped dolphin. Eventually it became its own species.

In my first post in this thread I said I agreed that dogs probably came from wolves and all breeds of dogs probably have a common ancestral type. Were you reading or paying any attention to that or are you just here to mislead people and contradict me?

Dogs are breeds. The Clymene dolphin is its own species. This is the type of evolution you claim there is no evidence for.

And you're claiming these spontaneously evolved from existing dolphins while there were witnesses to support this phenomenon?

For the last time this does NOT happen spontaneously but rather gradually over time. We can see this by sequencing DNA and comparing it to close relative species. What do you not get about the difference between spontaneous change vs gradual change over time?

That's the story, yes. The story that's completed unsupported by scientific evidence, only circumstantial observations at best.

They have never been observed to change into another species completely, which is what evolution requires.

Speciation in bacteria is delineated by their capability to utilize different nutrients. A species of e-coli developing capabilities to utilize a new nutrient is literally a new species of bacteria. This has been observed in a laboratory setting.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are really misinformed about this whole subject and you are using creationist arguments and rhetoric. You can get a good textbook that is used for really cheap. Try this Futuyma book.

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/ref=la_B000AP9G5K_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530133829&sr=1-4

Right - bacteria, after many generations, became bacteria that could metabolize different things. Are they still bacteria?

Then that doesn't really prove macro-evolution, does it?

Right - bacteria, after many generations, became bacteria that could metabolize different things. Are they still bacteria?

You understand that E-coli is a different species from Staphylococcus aureus, which is a different species from Microbacterium ammoniaphilum?? All are members of the same domain. To give you an example of what you are saying it would be claiming that eukaryotes stay eukaryotes even if dogs become elephants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-domain_system

Did the bacteria ever become non-bacteria in these experiments? Did the e.coli ever become anything besides e.coli?

Did the e.coli ever become anything besides e.coli?

Isolated sub-populations of e-coli developed morphological differences in cell and shape size, as well as capability to utilize a nutrient that the parent population was not able to use. A population changed over time, i.e., evolved.

One of the reasons why I suspect that you are a creationist is that you are approaching the divisions as hard and fixed. 'There are kinds god damn it and one does not change into another'. The problem is that the natural world is more characterized by continuity where our distinctions do not capture the relations in an accurate and rigorous manner.

So the e.coli are still e.coli?

You don't understand. There is a new population of bacteria that is different in metabolism as well as morphology. If this type of bacteria was encountered outside of the laboratory setting, there would be enough difference to classify it as a separate species. The point is the change in the population that is passed down. That is evolutionary change.

I understand fine - they have manipulated the definition of a species such that they can claim they can demonstrate one species of bacteria came from another. This is still a far cry from a concrete example of macro evolution, but thanks for trying. Change and adaptations are not the same as evolution and you know it :)

Change and adaptations are not the same as evolution and you know it :)

It is the same, as adaptation is a product of natural selection, one of the evolutionary mechanisms.

I understand fine - they have manipulated the definition of a species such that they can claim they can demonstrate one species of bacteria came from another.

No one manipulated anything except creationists attempting to claim that there are essential kinds which can't change one from another, driven purely by religious commitment.

Change over time is the same as evolution now? Lol

Just keep changing whatever definitions you want to, I guess. Keep referring to me as a creationist in a derogatory way as well - it really shows your prejudice.

Evolution is not science - it has not been subjected to the scientific method, it's just a speculative explanation that carries no real weight :)

He will call that an adaptation and refuse to understand how that relates to evolution theory.

one species cannot come from another - things reproduce their own kind.

Not a creationist my ass but reproduces talk of 'kinds' strait out of creationist literature.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/species-kinds-evolution

There's no evidence to back it up, it's just an empty philosophical claim.

Evolution is not a philosophical claim, it is a well supported scientific theory. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical claim.

Evolution is just a philosophical claim - it's a claim that all the diversity of lifeforms we see comes from other life by a process of evolution. There's no direct evidence to back it and there are numerous holes with this alleged explanation of natural phenomenon - therefore it is a baseless, imaginary, fictional philosophical premise.

It's definitely not hard science.

Evolution is just a philosophical claim - it's a claim that all the diversity of lifeforms we see comes from other life by a process of evolution.

That is not a philosophical claim. That is a claim of fact. All life forms today are a result of descent with modification.

There's no direct evidence to back it and there are numerous holes with this alleged explanation of natural phenomenon - therefore it is a baseless, imaginary, fictional philosophical premise.

Every single claim in this sentence is false.

There is direct evidence of evolution, it comes from all sectors of biological sciences. It is well supported by the fossil record, by findings of microbiology, by comparative anatomy, my lab experimentation, etc.

In 2006 there was a famous lawsuit against creationists attempting to peddle their crap under the guise of 'intelligent design', and attempting to sneak this into the science curriculum. Spend some time reading the trial transcripts of the experts that came in to testify, I think you will learn quite a lot.

https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

It's definitely not hard science.

Evolution understood as descent with modification is a scientific fact. The arguments about the mechanisms by which this occurs, are informed by the hard sciences, and the soft sciences. Molecular biology, I thin can safely be classified as a hard science to the STEM crowd, and it provides some of the most compelling evidence for evolution.

If you really believe that it's science, can you please explain how, using the scientific method, macro-evolution was first revealed?

If you are asking for a historical account, the answer lies that arguments about 'transmutation of the species' were becoming common in the scientific community and than Wallace and Darwin provided accounts of how geographically isolated populations showed morphological differences, and provided a mechanism by which this can be accounted for. So it was discovered by observation of the distribution of species.

There is no macro-evolution. Look, if you travel a centimeter a year, the distance traveled is a 'micro distance'. But travel a centimeter a year for 400 million years, and you went from Los Angeles to New York city a 'macro distance' comparing your starting point to your destination.

What tests and experiments were done to verify these processes?

Again, speciation was observed in a laboratory setting by Lenski.

Or read about retrovirus DNA that becomes incorporated into the hosts. We share viral DNA with primates, for example.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/01/our-inner-viruses-forty-million-years-in-the-making/

All life forms today are a result of descent with modification.

This is your whole problem - you assume this is true. You have no idea if it is not - you assume the evolutionary philosophy is true, therefore, you assume all change is actually an example of evolution. Presto chango, science!

Or circular reasoning?

This is your whole problem - you assume this is true.

I don't assume this. This is a fact. Every living organism is a result of descent with modification. You are a product of your parents, and you are different from either one. The tree in your your yard comes from previous generations and is different from them. The cat across the street came from cats before and is different. There is no lifeforms on the planet that did not arise from reproduction of the previous cell line. Unless you want to claim divine intervention... which makes you a creationist.

evolutionary philosophy is true

evolution is not a philosophy. It is a scientific fact. A philosophical position would be methodological naturalism as an epistemological position or a hard naturalism as an ontological position.

Calling all changes "evolution" is the only way you're able to convince anyone evolution is real.

No one is doing this. Evolution refers to changes in the population as they reproduce over time. These changes need to be passed down to offspring. It is descent with modification. That is the definition of biological evolution.

Or perhaps more accurately - circular reasoning?

There is no circular reasoning maintaining that populations reproduce, that they change over time, and that these changes are passed down. This is the definition of evolution.

Bacteria changing their food source is not evolution - it's adaptation to a new food source. The bacteria are still bacteria.

You just don't want to listen. One factor that determines the SPECIES of bacteria are metabolic pathways. A population developing a new metabolic pathway, is speciation.

The bacteria are still bacteria.

Bacteria is a general term for one cell organisms that lack a nucleus. There are many transitional arrangements whereby symbiotic relations occur. These are precursors to multi-cellular organisms and one celled organism containing new organelles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont

Claiming viruses invaded DNA 40 million years ago is another hilariously unscientific claim.

I am pointing out facts to you. Viruses have the capability to embed themselves in the genome, and be replicated as the genome is replicated. Human beings share a lot of DNA with other primates in the sense that they have the same changes in the genome. Think about that. There is identical viral code embedded in human and other primate genomes at identical places...

You're really not very good at discussing science

I will let other readers judge this, however, I am merely correcting your misunderstanding, which I suspect arose from your religious education and/or commitments.

only spamming mainstream links to narrative heavy pieces completely devoid of real science.

You should pick a textbook that was linked to you previously, because your religious education was very inadequate.

I didn't receive any religious education but thank you again for some more unfounded speculation :)

You have given no proof. You just claim things like "viruses have the ability to embed themselves in the genome" - umm, can you prove that? Do you know that viruses have altered genomes in the past, or is that more speculation?

However humans decided to define what speciation in bacteria is is not my problem. Bacteria remaining bacteria and adapting to a new food source is NOT macro evolution - it is not new species coming from old species. You know it's not, you're just trying to float this example to mislead people :)

You are totally impossible to converse with - I do not believe you're really here to talk with people, only to parrot mainstream explanation here on a /r/conspiracy - which is ridiculous.

You have no proof of anything you say, you just want others to accept the mainstream paradigm - which I am exposing as total nonsense.

Again, there is not and has never been ANY direct proof of one species turning into another or giving birth to another - this is total nonsense and its absolutely REQUIRED for evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fairytale, nothing more :)

I didn't receive any religious education but thank you again for some more unfounded speculation :)

You are filled with creationist misunderstanding, so you picked it up somewhere.

You have given no proof.

"viruses have the ability to embed themselves in the genome"

You are embarrassing yourself with your lack of basic biological knowledge. What do you think a retrovirus does?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Do you know that viruses have altered genomes in the past, or is that more convenient speculation to support your presupposition?

This is not a presupposition, this is an a posteriori conclusion. Not only have your religious commitments left you uneducated in biology, its has sent you on a road of philosophical misunderstanding as well.

However humans decided to define what speciation in bacteria is is not my problem.

Amazing! It is precisely what is the problem. Not only do you not have a coherent concept of kind, you have no idea what people discovered and have argued about speciation.

Bacteria remaining bacteria and adapting to a new food source is NOT macro evolution - it is not new species coming from old species.

To repeat a claim. There is no macro-evolution. This is a creationist canard. What you refer to as macro-evolution is merely small changes added over geological time, in such a manner that the differences from the starting point to to the end are 'extreme' in your subjective experience. There is nothing scientific about the difference.

Bacteria remaining bacteria and adapting to a new food source is NOT macro evolution - it is not new species coming from old species.

It is precisely what it is. A change in a population over time where changes are passed from one generation to the next. It is witnessed evolution. It is a change from one species into another. You don't know the difference between a domain and a species. Bacteria are a domain of life, just like eukaryotes are a domain, of which humans and foxes are members of.

You are totally impossible to converse with - I do not believe you're really here to talk with people, only to parrot mainstream explanation here on a /r/conspiracy - which is ridiculous.

We are not conversing. You show a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory, but refuse to accept basic facts and distort actual claims coming from the theory. You exhibited the following rhetorical moves creationists make.

1. An appeal to kind as a meaningful biological division.
2. An allegation that Evolution is a philosophical commitment.
3. Use of 'macro'-evolution as a meaningful category.
4. Alleged presuppositions and circularity.

At this point I would yell out bingo.

Secondly, I do not think mainstream appeals are meaningful in the context of scientific facts.

There are claims made in the scientific community and than there are distortions of those claims. You practice distortion. It would be one thing if you could accurately articulate that 'mainstream paradigm', and offer critiques, but continuously distorting it in order to push a creationist agenda is not it.

Again, there is not and has never been ANY direct proof of one species turning into another or giving birth to another

Again, there is direct evidence of speciation in a lab setting from the domain of bacteria, but evolutionary theory neither postulates that one species changes into another... populations change. It certainly does not mean that one species 'gives birth' to another.

This is an example of a distortion of evolutionary theory. So if you want to critique something, you should at least reproduce the claims accurately.

Doesn't matter how long your replies are - they are nonsense. Look up gish gallop :)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

All you do is talk in circles to confuse people. Evolution is not true, you think you know much more than you really do - you have even gone so far as to assume personal details about me - which you have no business doing and you were totally wrong about that too.

There is never and has never been any credible evidence of evolutionary theory because it's just nonsense speculation. It's not a credible theory, it's just a theoretical explanation of how things came to be as they are - one which we know is wrong and not supported by any science.

Doesn't matter how long your replies are - they are nonsense. Look up gish gallop :)

I am familiar with the method, perfected by the creationist Gish, which consisted of throwing a number of flawed statements and distortions against evolutionary theory in a TIMED debate, putting the opponent at at a disadvantage because all the time would be used up addressing a single distortion (creationists have many). Seeing how we are neither in a timed debate, nor am I providing you with many arguments, the charge of a Gish gallop is somewhat misplaced.

• you have even gone so far as to assume personal details about me - which you have no business doing and you were totally wrong about that too.

But I am not wrong am I? You are indeed a creationist, are you not?

All you do is talk in circles to confuse people.

What circles? Let me make this clear. You don't know what evolution is! You don't know anything about biology! And worst of all you refuse to learn anything. All three traits of fundamentalist creationists.

There is never and has never been any credible evidence of evolutionary theory because it's just nonsense speculation.

Please, just spend some time at a good university page

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

or explore the talk.origins archive

http://talkorigins.org/

Because not only is there overwhelming evidence that evolution is true, it is a unifying theory which brings together all the other disciplines in biology broadly defined. To quote the title of Dobzhansky's lecture, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Without the Theory of Evolution".

http://biologie-lernprogramme.de/daten/programme/js/homologer/daten/lit/Dobzhansky.pdf

GishGalloping all the way, eh? I respect your choice to continue to spam nonsense and claim it contains proof of evolution. Because I know there isn't any, I know you're not an earnest poster, and I know you don't have any concrete proof of evolution. It's a fantasy. It's your religious belief.

They're directly addressing each point you've made and provided context, reasoning, and keywords for you to investigate that debunk your claims. It's the exact opposite of gish-galloping.

But you fundamentally misunderstand science, so misunderstanding debate tactics doesn't seem far fetched.

GishGalloping all the way, eh?

No, to repeat the point again, not only am I not providing many arguments, but you are not limited in terms of time... nor space in formulating a response. The whole point of a Gish gallop is that one does not have enough time to address an avalanche of misinformation, thereby the misinformation peddler in the debate appears as the winner.

? I respect your choice to continue to spam nonsense and claim it contains proof of evolution.

Your language shows that you are not familiar with science in any serious manner. There is no proof, as proofs are the realm of deductive arguments like mathematics. What there is evidence that supports the theory, and the explanation by the theory of observed phenomenon. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, all you have to do is actually read a little.

I know you're not an earnest poster

Whether or not I am an earnest poster...I will leave to other readers to judge, however, none of that changes the fact, that you have no idea what you are discussing, you are proud in your lack of knowledge, and continue to peddle creationist nonsense.

It's a fantasy.

It is a scientific fact.

It's your religious belief.

I know that in your church or school or whatever this type of claim is treated as cleverness, but it really isn't. Acceptance of a scientific theory have very little in common as accepting claims without evidence, i.e., faith.

Evolution is your religion - it's that simple. You believe it's real despite no concrete evidence, and you're willing to twist definitions and harass people who threaten it. You are exactly like the religious bigot you want to paint me as - evolution is not science, and you are not arguing about science with me - you are arguing your own religion. Sorry, I didn't come here to have a religious discussion - If you don't have any science to back up your precious religious notion, that's fine, just don't call it science :)

edit: was because I used the "kind" ??? Using the word "kind" makes you assume a creationist perspective automatically? lol

Yes, it is a tell.

Or you're just trying to set me up as a religious nut job. You have accused me 3 times - and you have been wrong each time.

Just like you're wrong about evolution being real. What a total joker you are.

Or you're just trying to set me up as a religious nut job.

I don't think I am trying to set you up as a religious nut job. I am claiming that you are a creationist, and that your exposure to their arguments and literature is reflected in what you are writing. It is just a fact that what is in their literature is misunderstanding at best, and often willful distortion at worst of evolutionary theory.

Just like you're wrong about evolution being real. What a total joker you are.

Evolution is real. Descent through modification of populations is a fact. This is evidenced by laboratory experiments, the fossil record and evidence from molecular biology.

Nope, sorry, wrong. Evolution is just a theoretical explanation. Turns out it's really quite absurd and there's absolutely no hard-evidence. Evolution is not supported by any science.

Nope, sorry, wrong. Evolution is just a theoretical explanation.

You can continue to repeat this as mantra all you want, but it is diametrically opposed to the facts. Evolutionary theory contains plenty of 'theoretical' explanations and arguments. We can argue about what the unit of selection is, we can argue what traits are, what are adaptations, how we decide something is a product of natural selection vs genetic drift. We can have all these theoretical arguments, informed by the hard and soft sciences, but still not undermine the claim that evolution is a fact. There is modification through descent of populations.

Yes, but that's not evolution. New species don't come from old species on their own through this process. It's never happened.

Macro-evolution is the idea that a species can spontaneously arise from another species - which is completely false. I understand it fine, I just don't believe it - because there's no evidence at all.

You couldn't be more wrong. Macro-evolution refers to a collection of genetic changes in a population that arise over thousands of generations, one mutation at a time. You sound incredibly dense and misguided so I am not going to try to persuade you to change your views, but you're arguing something you don't know enough about to shout from the rooftops loudly that there is zero evidence of.

You're just claiming it happens over a longer timespan and is therefore more realistic - you are ignoring the fact that there's no evidence this has ever happened. That's my point - there is no evidence things happen this way - it's never been directly witnessed - it's not science, it's speculation.

I am telling you that that is the literal definition of macro-evolution, not what you're trying to suggest. You can google it for christ sakes. There is evidence called the fossil record. I really hope you aren't going to say next that the fossil record is all fake, because you can literally walk along a shoreline or quarry and find fossils yourself of extinct variations of extant species. That does suggest that substantial time has passed. Obviously we can't time travel and see for ourselves first-hand which seems to be the only solution to satisfy you. But like others have said, you seem to know more about this than the scientists so I'll just leave it at that.

There's no evidence - evolution is a religious notion.

There's no concrete proof at all - it's a fairytale.

Does anyone else find this format of line-by-line quoting comment-replying not only extremely space-inefficient, but also annoying and smarmy as fuck? I notice it’s mainly gatekeeping losers who employ it because it gives the illusion of actually having a coherent point and takes up so much space it’s impossible to ignore.

I do it so I dont get lost in comments.

I find its way harder to address points in a concise manner if its just a wall of text.

Its really not that hard to do...

Do you have anything to add or are you the formatting police?

When you have a conversation IRL do you repeat back what the other person says verbatim or do you just formulate a response and reply like a normal person? Because it kind of makes you sound like a doofus with echolalia and wastes everyone’s time scrolling through text that they literally just read.

When you have a conversation IRL do you repeat back what the other person says verbatim or do you just formulate a response and reply like a normal person?

I actually find what I do way easier to parse through than a plain old wall of text. Do you think this is somehow difficult? Have you ever tried RES? I can just highlight text and hit reply.

Because it kind of makes you sound like a doofus with echolalia and wastes everyone’s time scrolling through text that they literally just read.

Its fine that we disagree but I will keep on responding like how I normally do. It is worth noting that in the 7ish years Ive been on reddit not a single person has ever had an issue with it.

Also youre rude as fuck bro

In my opinion we see it around here so much because it's something that shills and trolls frequently do - they have a list/script of talking points and they just try to split up and mischaracterize anything you say. Then they'll even come along and attack you for trying to show others that they're only here to harass people mindlessly by spamming replies. Strange times. Thanks for commenting.

You poor ad hominem attack on their argumentative style doesn't actually negate any point they made. It just makes you look frightened by the points and ill equipped to respond to them.

I’m sorry, I actually didn’t detect a single substantial point in his comment. Can you show me where it is?

I’m sorry,

No youre not.

I actually didn’t detect a single substantial point in his comment.

Ill translate, the above user did use some big words like ad hominem argumentative or them.

< Can you show me where it is?

You would rather attack my writing style instead of what it contained because you cant.

Lol, think you got your “>” backwards there on accident. So much for “I have RES so all I do is highlight and reply.”

And your original comment contained nothing. You made a vague reference to pharyngeal nerves or some shit. I, too, can state random anatomy. Falciform ligament.

Lol, think you got your “>” backwards there on accident. So much for “I have RES so all I do is highlight and reply.”

Im sorry I didnt realize you werent a great typer.

You made a vague reference to pharyngeal nerves or some shit.

The fact you dont know what the laryngeal nerve is or how it relates to evolution lets me know for certain you have nothing to argue besides how my shtoyle is annoying to you.

Later bro

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/served-gif-7.gif

So much for “I have RES so all I do is highlight and reply.”

This only works for what you highlight and you can only hit reply once, so separating quotes out will still require > use. For instance I highlighted what I quoted and responded to that statement. If I wanted to comment on another of your points I'd have to copy paste it into my comment and put a > in front of it. So it goes like this:

Highlighted text and hit reply

Logical Fallacy.

Copy and paste using the > to make it a quote.

Logical Fallacy.

All the highlight and hitting reply does is just copy and paste what you highlighted into your comment and it puts a > in front of it. So it just saves you a couple steps, but is still pretty handy in my experience.

Does anyone else find this format of line-by-line quoting comment-replying not only extremely space-inefficient, but also annoying and smarmy as fuck?

It is using a strength of the written medium of being able to address each single point by point.

If macro-evolution were real it would have resulted in an impossibly convoluted infinitely branching tree with each variation and sub-variation compounding on each other until there were so many different subspecies no one could make sense of the taxonomy of it all, not to mention there would be a fossil record of all different stages of this happening. It actually makes no sense if you just logically consider it for a few minutes yet you’re of course being assailed as an anti-intellectualist. Some of us have a functioning brain in our heads at least. Cheers.

we’ve never seen one species give birth to another

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Has a fly ever given birth to a non-fly? Has an owl ever given birth to a non-owl? I'd love to see it or hear about it if this sort of thing has ever happened. But it hasn't ever happened. Macro-evolution is total bunk - it's a philosophical assumption, not science.

...You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works...lol

Evolution doesn't work. It's a made up philosophy with no evidence to support it :)

yes, it's a coincidence that primates share 94% of our DNA and have similar innate emotional responses. oh wait no, that's retarded.

you sound like a broken record.

Your argument doesn't seem to be much an argument at all. Being similar to thing doesn't prove that one came from the other, does it?

prove, no, support, absolutely.

the genes don't lie. that's how we can estimate how many people Genghis Khan raped/impregnated because of how many people have his genes, despite not being there to record the data, the range is considered accurate.

even gravity is still a theory, you know this right? i'm done trying to convince you though.

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink. in the age of information, you're a horse in the middle of the ocean who is dying of thirst. borderline pathetic.

Support with that? Assumptions based on your pre-supposed ideas of evolution?

you're quite literally willfully ignorant at this point considering we're speaking to each other on the internet; this conversation is over, cheers!

Sorry you couldn't get me to believe in your fish tale. Hope you have a good day.

The cool thing about facts is it doesn’t matter if you believe in them or not: the universe is indifferent.

You too!

Yep - well said. Doesn't matter how many believe in evolution - the facts are very clear - it's clearly nonsense.

Lol, okay buddy. I didn’t realize you were billions of years old, sorry!

You flatter me - I have accumulated this wisdom in a much shorter timespan, but thanks!

A horse surrounded by an ocean would definitely be dying of thirst as it would likely drink the saltwater in order to hydrate. This would make things worse of course, rushing our hypothetical horse to an even faster death by dehydration.

lol

you cant drink salt water tho

Some would say the same about gravity.

Total non sequitur and you've spammed nonsense replies to 4 of my comments here - please just leave me alone, this is harassment.

How is it harassment? Each reply that I have provided you related in some way to what your statement says. For you to say that it is "harassment" to post a link to a scientific article that directly addresses a point you made about DNA simply doesn't follow.

Perhaps looking up what non sequitur means, as a refresher, might be useful.

Your above reply is, "Some would say the same about gravity."

Sorry, I don't think you're here with any good or earnest intentions and I'm not going to engage with you about gravity in this thread about the farce of evolution. Please go away and leave me be.

Please go away and leave me be.

You don't have to respond to me if you like. However you are posting in a public forum and I have the privilege of responding to your public statements in a polite way.

If you don't want people to respond to your public statements then don't make said public statements in a forum that allows responses.

I don't have to respond to you - I've done more than is required. You've been abusive and anti-intellectual. Sorry I'm questioning your evolutionary religious beliefs but that's all they are. There is no proof at all. Have a good one.

You've been abusive and anti-intellectual

How have I been "abusive and anti-intellectual" /u/natavism? Those are serious charges that should require you to provide supporting evidence.

I will await your response.

Evolution is a farce - it's not scientific. There is no science that backs it. That's really the only thing that needs discussing here - there's no need for you to continually jump comment threads and try to twist the subject into personal nonsense. Please stop harassing - give hard scientific evidence of evolution or forfeit your position :)

There is no science that backs it.

Which is a demonstrably false statement unless you are using some obscure definition of science that I am not aware of.

continually jump comment threads

Responding to points you make != jumping comment threads.

How did you end up having three conversations with me at once? It wasn't me that started interacting with you :)

You seem to be only here to harass me and spam my comments.

Because you keep responding to all my messages? If you want it to be in a single thread then pick one and stay in it.

Please provide any hard evidence of evolution if you'd like to comment back and forth.

How many comments have you made now without addressing the main ideas in this thread, but merely attacking me?

Please provide ANY hard evidence of evolution - or admit it's simply a religious belief that you hold. Or is this a forfeit?

Where have I attacked you? The information you have asked for has been provided in another thread. If you wish to limit our discussion to a single thread them please do so.

I didn't start interacting with you in 3 different places - you started aggressively pressuring me all over this thread.

You made multiple statements in multiple threads so I replied to all of them.

Right - which is harassment. You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence some 20 comments later - the best you've done is link websites and PDFs that I'm assuming you just googled for. This isn't discussion, this isn't polite - this isn't adult conversation - as you claimed :)

You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence some 20 comments later

Actually I did, you even responded to it.

Right - which is harassment.

Please explain how responding to multiple comments is harassment when I do it but OK when you do it.

I didn't start engaging with you in this way - you started this tactic :) Do you understand now? :)

Hey, I think I can explain this.

You're making basically the one major mistake that every evolution non-believer makes, which is that you're underestimating the amount of time that macro-evolution is supposed to take. It is never immediate; it always takes a long, long time.

So, in answer to your questions: no, a fly never gave birth to a non-fly, etc. But you could say that the definition of the word "fly" slowly changed over thousands of years, so that a fly early in the chain wouldn't recognize (or be able to mate with) a fly late in the chain.

We do, frequently, see animals (and other lifeforms) giving birth to offspring that have slightly different characteristics but that are otherwise similar enough to their parents and peers that they're part of the same species. Stretch that out over many, many generations, and you get evolution.

Adding a huge time scale does not make the philosophical nature of evolutionary theory any more scientific.

There is no direct proof or evidence that evolution is real - none at all. Why should I believe something when there's no evidence at all? No way to test if it can possibly be true? Sounds like pseudoscience to me.

Well, there's no direct evidence, but there is evidence, from which we form a theory that attempts to both understand that evidence and make predictions. That's science!

Similarly, we have no "direct" evidence that the earth goes around the sun; we can not observe this phenomenon directly, because it's very slow and we don't have the proper vantage. We only theorize that it does so by observing the movement of stars in the night sky. It's a good theory, because it accounts for that evidence and makes accurate predictions about the movements of bodies in space.

Also as with the theory of evolution, as you say, it's impossible to prove that the heliocentric theory is true (at least with current technology); but it is possible to prove that it isn't true (if, in fact, it isn't true). All you would need is to observe a stellar body moving in a way that heliocentricity does not predict. Similarly, evolution could be disproven if, for example, a complex organism suddenly sprung from nowhere, or if you could disprove either the genetic theory or the theory of the age of the planet, both of which evolution depends on.

When there is no direct evidence to establish something as a scientific fact - it's not a scientific fact. That simple. No proof = smoke. Where there's smoke there's usually fire. The fire, in this case, is lies. If there is no proof of something, it's probably a lie.

It's a scientific theory. It's widely accepted as fact because it's a very good theory that does a really good job of explaining the phenomena we observe in the world around us.

Sometimes our limited human perspective -- our lifespans, or sensory organs, and our place in the universe -- mean that direct evidence is simply not something we're capable of getting. If only direct evidence counted, then it would be pointless for science to even try to theorize, for example, the origin of the universe. We weren't there to see it, so it would be impossible for us to even speculate on. This is, in many ways, the nature of science. If you choose only to believe the very narrow scope of things that you can see and experience for yourself, I sympathize with that viewpoint, but it's very narrow, and you're bound to only apply that standard selectively.

Think of all the scientific theories you do subscribe to, but for which you have no direct evidence. You probably basically accept, for example, the atomic theory of matter -- even though you've never seen an atom or its component parts before. Lack of direct evidence of atoms doesn't mean the atomic theory is a 'lie', right?

If there is no direct evidence of proof for something, it's not science.

I imagine I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. The truth is, science is sometimes complicated. It's not for everybody.

Let me explain this for you. Science is the body knowledge produced by the scientific method - evolution is not in this body of knowledge, because there is no direct evidence. Evolution is not hard science, it's a scientific theory, which is actually more of a pre-supposition based on a philosophical notion.

Evolution is pseudoscience.

If you do a little reading up on the meaning of the term scientific theory, I think you'll be surprised to find that they are in fact the cornerstone of scientific knowledge, and that they are indeed formulated in accordance with the scientific method.

But don't take the word of a random internet stranger! I encourage you to audit a college class, or research the subject at your local library.

Let me explain this for you -

There's no direct evidence for evolution. You seem to have skipped over that entirely, and now you're acting like a totally baseless narrative story can be the basis for good science. One of us certainly needs more study time but I don't think it's me :)

At this point I feel like you are just trolling. U/lemme-explain has cited a few widely accepted scientific theorys that cannot directly be seen and you keep spouting that just because you can't see something makes it not real. This just isn't true like he has explained, you seem to have not read and keep to your only response of not being able to "see" evolution.

Let me explain this to you.

His sources are not credible - read through them if you wish. I've already explained my stance and none of his materials counter my basic stance and observations - which is that there is not sufficient record and hard evidence to qualify evolution as science. Which is still totally true - no one has provided anything remotely scientific in this entire thread. Take a look if you want, it's a bunch of nonsense. Because evolution is a fairytale.

What other scientific "facts" do you think are fairytales? Just curious because by your explanation there has to be some more.

Looking by this dude's amazing ignorance I'd say.... gravity lmao

Many browsers of conspiracy reject macro-evolution entirely.

Of course, because the distinction between micro/macro is pure creationist drivel. Macro-evolution is just evolutionary changes looked at a longer time frame, hence the morphological difference are more pronounced.

Because there's no direct proof or evidence that it happens - at all.

Except for the evidence from the fossil record, and evidence from molecular biology, and evidence from homology, etc, etc.

Or that humans came from monkeys.

Pick up a good science book, instead of creationist literature. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, humans don't come from monkeys.

Add these frauds to a total lack of fossil evidence.

The fossil evidence is robust.

Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Tiktaalik being the most famous recent example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

And then there's the fact that we've never seen one species give birth to another - it has literally never happened.

This is not how evolution works, species don't just give birth to new species. Populations change over time. Secondly we literally saw evolution confirmed among organisms that rapidly reproduce, i.e., bacteria. Read about Lenski's experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

I don't read any creationist literature, but thanks for being the second person to try to dismiss me as a religious zealot without any proof. What a total joke.

I'm familiar with the claims of the e.coli experiment. As I have already said a number of times, changes or adaptations are not the same as evolution. Has e.coli ever evolved into something else in a lab? No, and it never will. It will continue to be e.coli - generation after generation, though it may adapt to changes to some extent.

Exactly - thanks for admitting no species has never given birth to another - it's not how reality works at all. Evolution is psuedo-scientific philosophy - it's not, has never been, and will never be science.

As for identifying fossils you’re right. It’s difficult to identify extant species, let alone fragments of bone. However I think you’re misunderstanding what natural selection is. As for macro evolution have you seen This?

It’s a fairly good demonstration of what happens over millions of years.

Nobody says that one day a monkey shit out a female human and another monkey had a male and those two were the first humans. It doesn’t work like that.

Presuming that something happens slowly and over time is not science - it's still an unfounded presumption. There's no proof of macro-evolution AT ALL - it's totally a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

Are you having fun trolling?

I'm explaining many of the various problems with evolutionary theory and trying to discuss it with others who are willing to have a discussion. If this does not describe you, then I'm sorry, but there's really no need to accuse me of trolling. Hope you have a nice day.

But you haven't explained any of the "various problems with evolutionary theory". All's I am really getting from you numerous posts, is that since we can't see it then there is no way it can exist which is not the case and has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Also, I think you have "scientific theory" misunderstood as you have used theory as a put down a few times. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Right - evolution is just a story. There's never been a scientific experiment done that validates evolution. Not with proper controls, dependant and independent variables etc. And it never will be - because it's totally impossible. In reality evolution is just a philosophical claim that's disguised as "scientific theory"

Can they not trace ancestry through our dna?

Do you think they can trace human DNA back to a monkey?

DNA evidence does suggest that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.

Similar DNA patterns is not evidence of a common ancestor. The only reason it would is if you assume evolution is real.

The theory of evolution attempts to explain these similarities. Do you have an alternative explanation?

Let me explain - All I really want to talk about is how we can all know that evolution is a hoax by looking at the total lack of direct evidence to support it.

Just take a step back and realize it's all philosophy - there is no science in it at all. It's a fairytale wrapped in scientific jargon.

Do you have an alternative explanation?

No thanks, now that I know that evolution is a fairytale I don't want or need another fairytale to put in its place - I'm trying to be an adult about all this and merely deal with this reality the best way I can - without abstractions.

Similar DNA patterns is not evidence of a common ancestor.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2448423/

Humans share about 99% of their genomic DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos; thus, the differences between these species are unlikely to be in gene content but could be caused by inherited changes in regulatory systems. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) comprise ∼ 5% of the human genome. The LTRs of ERVs contain many regulatory sequences, such as promoters, enhancers, polyadenylation signals and factor-binding sites. Thus, they can influence the expression of nearby human genes. All known human-specific LTRs belong to the HERV-K (human ERV) family, the most active family in the human genome. It is likely that some of these ERVs could have integrated into regulatory regions of the human genome, and therefore could have had an impact on the expression of adjacent genes, which have consequently contributed to human evolution. This review discusses possible functional consequences of ERV integration in active coding regions.

How do you explain that?

I think I've explained it already - here it is for you all wrapped up with a pretty bow

Similar DNA patterns is not evidence of a common ancestor.

Retarded

That's just.. retarded.

That's why everyone is assuming you are religious: because you have a religiouos mind. Everyone showed you multiple evidence, arguments and more importantly facts and all you can come up with is a pitiful lack of response filled with ignorance coming from your own words.

What a shame, and you call yourself a conspiracy theorist smh.

I would never call myself a conspiracy theorist.

You guys all believe the religion of evolution - and you think it's scientific. It's a total fairytale with no proof behind it, only circumstantial observations. Just like a religion.

Please go away and stop harassing me - spamming replies on a multiple day old threat just call someone dumb or religious when they are not is abusive.

There's no proof of evolution, no proof has been offered in this entire thread. At this point it's literally just people calling me names and insisting I'm wrong without offering anything but insults and ad-homs.

Sorry, but no, evolution is a religious belief - it's simply a fairytale. No proof, it's not science.

There's no proof of evolution, no proof has been offered in this entire thread

I'm amazed at how much you deny reality.

Evolution isn't reality - it's a farce masquerading as science. Do you have anything to contribute or are you just here to harass me? :)

I won't say anything because I know you won't read it from me - religious mind does that.

If you are capable of, read this https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/65/11/1077/374311

Sorry, you're not an earnest poster - you're here to ridicule and harass me and others who know evolution is simply a religious notion and nothing more.

Please leave me - you've harassed me repeatedly and clearly have no desire to actually discuss this - only to belittle and harass people who you disagree with to promote your narcissistic and vainglorious religion :)

So repetitive. I hope you are just trolling because otherwise you are really wasting your life. Don't be afraid to admit that you were wrong, nobody will make fun or shit on you for that. In fact, people will respect your honesty.

Just stop hiding and fear knowledge, read about it. It's literally for you own good and sanity dude, I'm actually concerned now.

I'm not wrong - evolution is simply not scientific in any way. It's a religious notion :)

evolution is simply not scientific in any way.

You keep saying this and people keep showing you scientific articles and studies about it and you can't even read them - your behavior is the exact one of a child and a religious person.

Be a man and read, you know you'll won't be able to live in ignorancr anymore since people have proven to you already. It's just a matter of accepting reality.

The reality is that evolution is just a silly lie - it is not demonstrable, it's just a philosophical stance. Definitely not science in any way. :)

If you think it is, please prove it! :)

it is not demonstrable, it's just a philosophical stance

Yes it is, fossils, virus, our own dna, it all shows up.

Definitely not science in any way

You really don't know what science is. By the way, thousands of scientists from all over the world with different fundings who spent their whole lives studying it all came to conclusion (not at the same time) that this theory is actually very true. So much that it has the same status as Gravity, Big Bang and Relativity. But I'm your random words are enough to you to make up your mind LMAO.

If you think evolution is science, please prove it!

It has been done for over 100 years now, try to catch up.

All you've done so far is attempt to explain away my position without providing any sort of evidence yourself

You literally ignored every reply in this thread with information - as you will do with mine right now. Also, I don't feel obligated to show proof to a flat earther that the earth isn't flat and the same with people who deny the reality of Evolution.

Guess the devil put dinossaurs and fossils here to confuse you.

I'm not religious - you are. You're the one that believes in something totally nonscientific - and you believe it's science as well. Sorry, but again, I'm not religious - at all. You seem to be very confused :)

You're the one that believes in something totally nonscientific

Again, deliberately ignoring the arguments because you know you don't have it.

Just like this previous reply:

it is not demonstrable, it's just a philosophical stance

where I said this:

Yes it is, fossils, virus, our own dna, it all shows up.

And you back it with:

You're the one that believes in something totally nonscientific

Yeah, keep saying you aren't religious.. no one will believe it.

I've never been a member of any church, I've only been inside a handful of churches in my entire life. I've been to maybe 2 or 3 services in my entire life, and never as a believer. The only religious zealot here is you :)

Religion is not about going somewhere or joining a cult, it's a thinking process. And you have showed every possible scenario of a religious mind - dismissing arguments without even acknowledging it, reading or even saying why you dismiss it with logic.

Proof, evidence, arguments and facts won't chanhe your mind, and that's religious thinking. If you have any supporting evidence against evolution show it then, and if it's true I'd definitely change my mind. But you only keep crying and trying to escape having a discussion/debate because you know you don't have any supporting evidence against evolution and have TONS of supporting evidence gathered for around 100 years of studying for evolution.

I'm not crying or trying to escape anything - I'm asking you to provide evidence for something you call scientific fact - but you can't do that.

Because evolution is not scientific fact - it's a religious idea :)

And here we are! Again, asking for evidence. Then I show it to you and you scream that you don't understand it and think you even have a point.

Seek. help. Stop reading the bibullshit, creationism is the stupidest thing ever thought of (other than "faked fossils" heuaheuaheushayeheyeheyjfk)

The only one screaming (using caps, bold, etc) is you :)

I'm just here asking you to provide scientific for evolution - which you absolutely seem incapable of doing. Maybe you want to call in someone else to help you? :)

What a troll. If you are able to then respond to the reply that I've already done linking you to multiple sources and showing you multiple evidence and arguments and elaborate you don't find it truthful.

You can't because you know they are real, but it'd be extremely pleasant and funny to watch the mental breakdown you'd have just by reading it. Or maybe ask someone else.. like alex jones, cooper, a priest or your sky god who magically put animals here and for millions of years they didn't mutate, reproduce or change at all.

Yeah, earth is 10k years old right? (spoilers: no) HUE

I'm not religious - I'm not sure why you have to keep attacking me.

Can you provide any scientific evidence of evolution or is it just a religious belief for you?

Then elaborate on this reply made by me that you ignore. Go point by point and actually read it.

&gt;Evolution is just a story

Not even when you deliberately ignore the evidence.

I'll link up but you won't read because it's that that's who you are but anyways:

From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!

here you can explore all the known variations of human species:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species

Ardipithecus kadabba: Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia) When Lived: Between about 5.8 and 5.2 million years ago Ardipithecus kadabba lived between about 5.8 and 5.2 million years ago. Ardipithecus kadabba was bipedal (walked upright), probably similar in body and brain size to a modern chimpanzee, and had canines that resemble those in later hominins but that still project beyond the tooth row. This early human species is only known in the fossil record by a few post-cranial bones and sets of teeth. One bone from the large toe has a broad, robust appearance, suggesting its use in bipedal push-off. Year of Discovery: 1997. When he found a piece of lower jaw lying on the ground in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia 1997, paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie didn’t realize that he had uncovered a new species. But 11 specimens from at least 5 individuals later, Haile-Selassie was convinced he had found a new early human ancestor. The fossils—which also included hand and foot bones, partial arm bones, and a clavicle (collarbone)—were dated to 5.6–5.8 million years old. One of the specimens, a toe bone, is dated to 5.2 million years old; this fossil has features of bipedal walking. Faunal (fossil animal) evidence from the site indicated that the early humans there lived in a mixture of woodlands and grasslands, and had plenty of access to water via lakes and springs.

maybe another one?

One of the earliest members of the genus Homo, has a slightly larger braincase and smaller face and teeth than in Australopithecus or older hominin species. But it still retains some ape-like features, including long arms and a moderately-prognathic face. Its name, which means ‘handy man’, was given in 1964 because this species was thought to represent the first maker of stone tools. Currently, the oldest stone tools are dated slightly older than the oldest evidence of the genus Homo. Year of Discovery: 1960. A team led by scientists Louis and Mary Leakey uncovered the fossilized remains of a unique early human between 1960 and 1963 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The type speciman, OH 7, was found by Jonathan Leakey, so was nicknamed "Jonny's child". Because this early human had a combination of features different from those seen in Australopithecus, Louis Leakey, South African scientist Philip Tobias, and British scientist John Napier declared these fossils a new species, and called them Homo habilis (meaning 'handy man'), because they suspected that it was this slightly larger-brained early human that made the thousands of stone tools also found at Olduvai Gorge.

Guess that's just religion. Now about dna:

DNA shapes how an organism grows up and the physiology of its blood, bone, and brains. DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are. While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA. Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes. No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes. The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.

religion, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy_and_apomorphy

In phylogenetics, apomorphy and synapomorphy refer to derived characters of a clade – characters or traits that are derived from ancestral characters over evolutionary history.[2] An apomorphy is a character that is different from the form found in an ancestor, i.e., an innovation, that sets the clade apart ("apo") from other clades. A synapomorphy is a shared ("syn") apomorphy that distinguishes a clade from other organisms.

religion?

One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit. That would be interesting enough on its own. What makes it more interesting is that, the further back one goes, the more different the species appear when compared to today’s species. These overarching trends can also be seen on the individual level, as lineages can be seen changing over time. How do we know, though, that fossil progressions don’t just represent separate, unrelated species? First, they have similarities that suggest they are related (see above reasoning concerning similarities between species). Secondly, they represent a trend, also known as a progression of change. For instance, over time, the species go from low expression of a certain trait to intermediate expression to high expression. Like the evolution of legs, for example. In fact, since we are on the topic, there is no missing link in evolution. Lastly, the fossils are dated and organized by direct means (like radiometric dating) or indirect means (like relative dating using unique marker layers, fossils, or other techniques).

I don't think you even know what both 'religion' and 'science' means LMAO.

Turn over a manufactured product today, and you are likely to see a small sticker or tag that says what country it was made in. Like those tags, species bear the marks of where they came from. These signs of origin might come in the form of repurposed traits, traits that hurt a species chances of surviving or reproducing. Put simply, species are flawed, and it’s these flaws that clearly tell of their natural origin. What’s so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions: Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related? Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography? Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations? Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.

https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/

Ignore and dismiss it, I'm waiting.

You don't understand what scientific evidence is, do you?

HAHAHAHAH THERE HE GOES, DISMISSING EVERYTHING HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

You definitely do not understand science my boy, stop lying to yourself. You can't even read it, all the information hurts your brain. Thank you for this laugh, I hadn't had a good laugh like this for weeks. Oh my god.

Science is actually the scientific method - not the fancy people from universities - that's what makes it credible. The fancy scientists haven't followed the scientific method :)

That's why evolution isn't science.

Though there are diverse models for the scientific method available, in general there is a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world.

Come and tell me about scientific method again? LMAO Another failed attempt to try to sound like you know something about science, but you don't.

Try again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Quoting part of wikipedia out of context to try to prove your point is very typical of people in your position :)

Sorry but you can't twist the scientific method to include fantasy - then it wouldn't be very useful, would it? :)

Sorry but evolution is not science - at all - it's speculation :)

Sorry but you can't twist the scientific method to include fantasy

Fossils are fantasy now? DNA is fantasy? Analysis of fossils and DNA are fantasy? HAHAHA

Keep trying dude, you have accomplished nothing.

You haven't been able to give a single example of science that supports evolution - all you have is some random observations and your precious narrative :)

Sorry, that's not science :)

random observation

hmmmmmmmmmm

Though there are diverse models for the scientific method available, in general there is a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

You are literally the same as priest screaming "you don't understand god" but saying "you don't understand science" HAHAH Yeah dude, hundred of years of study. Keep going,

is the earth 5 billions years old or that is not science aswell?

Why do you think the earth is 5 billion years old?

THERE HE GOES HEUHEUHEUHEUHEUHUEH

Yeah dude, Earth is flat by the way.

I know :)

HAHAHAHHA HE'S A FLAT EARTHER HHAHAHAHA

A FLAT EARTHER TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE HEUHEUHEUHEUHEUHEUEHUHEU LUCKFOGIC

I'm just talking about your total lack of scientific evidence for things you seem to be convinced are "science"

:)

Buy a telescope, seriously. And point it to saturn, it's not flat. Or fly high on a plane and look to the horizon omg smh just get smarter dude wtf

I see you don't want to talk about evolution any more - is it because you're aware that's not scientific in the least? And are you admitting that it's a religious belief? :)

Dude, you're a flat earther. If Logic didn't work with you about EVOLUTION then it definitely won't work about the basic reality of your own planet.

Religious people are cancer because they spread the bullshit. You are just incredibly ignorant, not worth my time. If you ever have the balls to LEARN just read what I wrote, it's pretty basic stuff.

I'm not religious - and I think your attitude here is incredibly bigoted :)

Religious people are cancer because they spread the bullshit. You are just incredibly ignorant, not worth my time. If you ever have the balls to LEARN just read what I wrote, it's pretty basic stuff.

I specifically said I didn't think you are religious, only ignorante (aka flat earther). Can't you even read a sentence? Well, expected.

Saying all religious people are cancer is extremely bigoted :)

It is, religion is the root of all evil. It blinds you and the leaders burn and hunt you if you disagree with them (aka show them knowledge) like the Catholics did and Scientologists do.

This is not bigot, this is fact.

To say that an entire section of humanity is anything negative is the definition of bigoted :)

It goes back to Neanderthal and earlier Hominid species. Human DNA carries hints of unknown extinct ancestor | Science News for Studentshttps://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/human-dna-carries-hints-unknown-extinct-ancestor

"it goes back" ?? We can't really tell causation here, can we? We can say the DNA looks similar, but that's about it.

I guess you know more than the scientists so I’m out of my league

My point is that we can't trace human DNA back to monkeys - we can perhaps say that human DNA and monkey DNA are similar. But because we don't absolutely know, it's not scientific to say. Until a monkey spontaneously starting evolving towards a human, or a monkey gives birth to a human spontaneously or something like that. But minus some actual credible hard evidence, evolution is just a philosophical suggestion, not scientific - evolution is a fairytale.

So if we can't trace things back and get an absolute result that makes it false?

My point is that we can't trace human DNA back to monkeys - we can perhaps say that human DNA and monkey DNA are similar. But because we don't absolutely know, it's not scientific to say. Until a monkey spontaneously starting evolving towards a human, or a monkey gives birth to a human spontaneously or something like that. But minus some actual credible hard evidence, evolution is just a philosophical suggestion, not scientific - evolution is a fairytale.

Please answer my question as it isn't restricted to just your flawed understanding of evolution.

No thanks, I don't want anything to do with you.

Why is it that, when challenged with anything difficult, you refuse to answer?

Not here to cater to your needs or w/e. Please go away and stop harassing me :)

Not really a need here, this person was just challenging you to one-up them since you know all the facts.

Nah, they spammed several comment threads and were generally not contributing - only scoffing and doubting and detracting from my posts.

All you need to know is that evolution is a fantasy religion - and that there have never been any concrete proof that this fantasy evolutionary force causes new species to emerge - it's total religious fantasy. Not supported by science in the least.

Not one poster here has produced any hard scientific evidence that verifies evolution can lead to speciation. That should be VERY telling :)

Enjoy your religious beliefs - just don't call them science :)

they spammed several comment threads and were generally not contributing - only scoffing and doubting and detracting from my posts.

How is what you're doing any different. I did a degree mainly focused on evolutionary bio and taxonomy of various groups, and your dismissal of evidence no matter how compelling is really only making you look like a fool to the educated, and this is me trying not to belittle you because I see what point you're trying to make. You don't understand the meaning of science if you think it is any sort of religion besides calling it blind belief. Science is compiling evidence that either supports a hypothesis or dismisses it. Nothing should ever be taken as absolute fact in science, EVER, and should always have room to be disproven. Theories like evolution cannot be disproven or proven and that is what constitutes a true theory, and that is the closest thing in science you will come to a fact, apart from laws.

Evolution does not lead to speciation, speciation IS evolution. The natural world is far more complex than you are making it out to be. A thousand microevolutions in isolation will lead to macroevolution, unless you are suggesting that this planet hasn't been around that long.

Please provide proof of your educational background.

I sincerely doubt you're qualified at all - all you've done is change your definitions around so that the current world proves evolution is true - you have no examples, no hard evidence at all - at best you've only provided a circular argument.

Please provide any proof that evolution is real, and please provide proof that you have the educational background you claim.

I did not move definitions around. I am giving you the correct definitions. Again, you can google those.

And what do you expect me to do, flash my degree? Take pictures of my textbooks? If I had them with me I would take pics of the definitions you assume I'm making up. Would that somehow make me more credible to you, because you seem beyond convincing, even if I had a doctorate, you would just say I am a priest in a religion of falsities.

As for hard proof, the only thing I can give you are journal articles that point towards it.

Example: http://www.pnas.org/content/91/10/4599.short in article this four species of Oyster Mushroom are gathered, rDNA sequences are compared to the geographic region and the phylogenies synchronize with the gene sequences

Please go away and stop harassing me :)

Why do you equate having a rational adult conversation with harassment?

Is that what you claim you're doing? How many comment threads of mine did you / are you currently involved in to have your adult conversation?

Provide evidence of non-adult behavior or retract your accusation.

Evolution is a fairytale.

Changing the subject? You accused me of harassment so asking for evidence isn't changing the subject.

Yes - harassing me in this thread about the farce of evolution by trying to distract people from the point and spamming this thread needlessly without providing any useful content - you're only annoying me.

Please provide any evidence or reasoning or w/e you want to justify your religious beliefs - i.e., evolution - or please stop trying to manipulate thread. This thread is about the fraud of evolution :)

Support your statement that science == religion.

Evolution isn't science - it's just a theoretical explanation for the world - like religion. If you want to claim the evolution is real, please provide scientific evidence.

Will this work? http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

I tried to pick out a non-technical site to make it easier for you.

What's your evidence, specifically?

Here you go!

http://ellinikahoaxes.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Mitochondrial-DNA-and-human-evolution.pdf

Can you explain this claim?

You have to look up your own opinions haha :)

You know a neutral observer would say that you aren't exactly being honest here. You ask for information then, when it is provide, deflect.

You haven't provided information :)

Just links that you literally just googled - you have no idea what they say :)

Actually it was a paper that I had stored on my local network which I have read in the past. I then found a copy that you could reference online.

A paper that you cannot reference yourself in conversation?

Only by linking?

You can't explain or discuss the material, only link an article that someone else wrote. Pretty sad for someone who thinks they have the truth on their side :)

With all do respect I can discuss it so what part would you like to discuss?

You have no idea what the article says or what it's claiming :)

You know this how?

Because it's way above your head - you can't summarize or reference any part of it, you merely presented it as holy grail evidence. You have no clue what it's even claiming :)

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhaha

Perfect example of a religius mind right here folks, coming from u/natavism

I'm not religious at all - I never have been. I was telling a user called /u/IMA_Catholic to stop harassing me. Catholics love to promote the evolution hoax - look into Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - he help perpetrate the Piltdown hoax to promote evolution and he was a lifelong Catholic. You guys are quite desperate when people start calling you on your evolution religion. It's total bunk, not scientific at all.

Degrading to personal attacks?

Please stop jumping comment threads and trying to manipulate the conversation - please give hard scientific evidence of evolution or forfeit this nonsense :)

Asking you to support your statements isn't jumping threads. You appear to be ignoring people who respond with scientific information

There has been no scientific evidence offered - only circumstantial observations which do not prove evolution is a real phenomenon. :)

Do you have any hard evidence of your religious evolutionary beliefs or are you just going to continue to post harassing me without addressing the subject at hand?

Do you have any hard evidence that I am harassing you?

This is harassment

there is no need for you to spamming all of my comment threads and not addressing the primary subject of this thread.

Provide evidence to support that accusation.

You're aggressively pressuring me in several places all around this thread - I didn't start any of these.

Why do you have the expectation that you can control who responds to you in a public forum? I have been polite and professional to you so please stop with this "aggressively pressuring" line of discussion which doesn't match reality.

Again asking you for evidence isn't wrong. If you wish to limit our discussion to a single thread then please do so.

I'm not claiming I should be able to control it - I'm only claiming that you are obviously not here to have "adult conversation" as you once said - you are only here to contradict me. In many places at once - which is harassment.

In many places at once - which is harassment

Why don't your rules apply to you? I have stated, multiple times, that you can simply stop replying in three places and limit it to one.

You can even make a new thread and send me the link and I will reply there.

Thanks for again trying to omit the fact that you obviously started harassing me :)

Given that I haven't harassed you why would I falsely state that I have?

My point was that you have chosen to engage me in multiple comment threads without contributing anything - you are obviously not here to have any kind of honest discussion :)

How have I been dishonest?

You continuously derail and distract people from the main thrust of my comments - which is that evolution is a religious belief, it's not scientific at all.

There is no hard scientific evidence to lead me to conclude that evolution is real - it's simply a religious notion. Evolution is not science.

There is no hard scientific evidence to lead me to conclude that evolution is real

What would you accept as evidence?

Anything that can be verified by the scientific method - that is, anything we can design an experiment to test and independently observe of course. As I've been saying all along. And no one has provided ANYTHING in this entire ~400 comments that qualifies.

Evolution is not based on the scientific method - it's just errant speculation about the diversity of life and how it came to be.

Anything that can be verified by the scientific method

How do you define the scientific method?

I don't need to define it - it has a common definition.

Evolution does not meet the rigors of the scientific method because it cannot be reproduced reliably in an experimental setting. It's a speculative narrative on how life could have formed and how it could have become diverse - it's also not falsifiable, which is another requirement of science. Evolution is merely speculation.

I don't need to define it - it has a common definition.

It is demonstrable that you don't use the common definition of words so explain what you mean by "scientific method" please.

It is also demonstrable that you have not provided any scientific evidence to back evolution at all :)

I'm still waiting for scientific evidence supporting evolution - we're still at zero for well over 400 comments now. If you don't know what science is, or do not have faith in me, that's not my problem.
You are free to leave and I will consider it a forfeit.

Still waiting!

It is also demonstrable that you have not provided any scientific evidence to back evolution at all

I am trying to give you evidence you will accept but, strangely enough, you will not define what you will accept as evidence.

Still waiting for scientific evidence of evolution :)

Still waiting for scientific evidence of evolution :)

Why are you looping?

Why are you not able to provide anything? :)

Why are you not able to provide anything?

Define scientific method as I have already asked you to.

I have to repeat myself because you continuously change the subject.

That is false. I need you to tell me what you will take as evidence and you are refusing to do so. That you are unwilling to define what you mean by things is proof of that.

I'm not using any special definition - I've explained my stance countless times in this thread already - I'm not going to play any games with you.

I'm just going to sit here respectfully asking for scientific evidence for evolution - which you have not been able to do. Neither has anyone else.

Take your time - no need to rush a reply like you have been doing - this isn't a contest to get the last comment. I'm just simply asking for scientific proof of evolution.

Do you have any scientific proof of evolution are is this a forfeit?

Define scientific method. You are the only reason you haven't been given the evidence you request.

I'm not using any special definitions or any kind of bizarre trickery - I'm just asking you and anyone else for scientific evidence of evolution - and no one has been able to give me anything besides these silly excuses like the ones you keep providing :)

I'm not using any special definitions or any kind of bizarre trickery

Then provide your definition. You will not because you can't.

You didn't say anything for days - that's a forfeit. I'm not using any special definition of science or the scientific method - evolution just doesn't qualify and you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

You didn't say anything for days - that's a forfeit.

It's almost cute how you think you can tell me how to spend my time.

You refuse to say what your definition of scientific method is which is something you must do given the evidence that your definitions of science and theory appear to come straight out of AiG.

AiG?

I'm just using the definition for empirical sciences. Evolution is not science :)

You know to any outside observer it appears that you don't know the definition.

I don't care - No one in this entire thread has been able to give any scientific evidence for evolution :)

You will get such evidence from me once you tell me what you will accept as scientific evidence.

You're just play games you silly clown - almost to 500 comments, still no credible evidence of evolution :)

No I am offering to provide the information you have requested but you insist on playing stupid games.

You could have easily provided evidence for evolution but we both know you don't have any at this point :)

Except you ignore evidence by saying things like it doesn't follow the scientific method / it isn't scientific then you refuse to define what those words mean.

Now adult up and define what you mean.

The scientific method is defined all over the place - I'm not using a special definition. If your "scientific evidence" for evolution doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method, it's not scientific evidence :)

It's just observations with a narrative overlay. Not science. You don't have any science to support evolution because no one does :)

You don't have any science to support evolution because no one does

Again there is evidence you just say it doesn't count because it doesn't follow your own personal definition of scientific method that you refuse to share.

Part of thinking scientifically requires those involved to agree to the definition of terms, that you refuse to define your terms leads evidence to the fact that you aren't thinking scientifically.

You haven't given any evidence - you're just avoiding your inevitable forfeit. :)

I'm not using any special terms, you're just trying to accuse me of that so you can have an excuse not to put out your evidence :)

Wrong.

Thanks for the forfeit - please don't engage with me in the future :)

I will respond to any public comment I wish.

Stalking is against the rules and terms of service. Please do not follow me across any other threads, as you have done already.

I appreciate your forfeit in this exchange - evolution is not empirical science or scientific in the least. It's not your fault you couldn't prove that is. Thanks again and good luck out there :)

Please do not follow me across any other threads, as you have done already.

I almost always respond to anti-evolution or flat earth posts as my posting history shows so for you to claim it is stalking is absurd. If you don't want to risk being called out for bending the truth then don't bend the truth.

You don't have to respond to me and are more than welcome to block my account if you don't want to see my posts but please note that others will see my responses to you so they will know that what you are saying sometimes isn't based in reality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4dmnn6/new_and_improved_block_user_feature_in_your_inbox/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You've already forfeited here because you can't provide ANY scientific evidence for this "theory" you call "truth"

If someone is bending the truth around here, it seems way more likely that it's you - who cannot provide any evidence for something you're claiming is true. And I would assume by your user name that you are religious as well - I guess we know the evolution religion is compatible with the Catholic one.

Thanks again for the forfeit - it has been a pleasure revealing your stubborn ignorance and lack of scientific evidence for your claims and beliefs. Enjoy your baseless religious notions :)

You've already forfeited here because you can't provide ANY scientific evidence for this "theory" you call "truth"

Incorrect. I am trying to provide you with the evidence you have requested buy you refuse to give me parameters that I can use. Without those parameters you will simply say what I provide isn't science

If someone is bending the truth around here, it seems way more likely that it's you - who cannot provide any evidence for something you're claiming is true.

I will provide just tell me what you need in such a way that when I provide it you don't change what you want.

I've been consistent this whole thread - everyone can see all of my comments. I'm just asking for scientific evidence of evolution - which no one has been able to provide. They're tried cartoons, stories, false records, some scattered remains, e.coli evolving into e.coli and bacteria evolving into bacteria.

So far, thats zero scientific evidence. I'm not using any special definitions - You simply don't have any.

Thanks for forfeiting, there's no need to continue to harass me. :)

I'm just asking for scientific evidence of evolution - which no one has been able to provide.

That is due to you thinking that everything you disagree with isn't evidence.

If you had reasonable arguments, you wouldn't need to attack my understanding :)

You could simply provide scientific evidence of evolution - which you have not done :)

How is asking you to define things attacking your understanding? As of yet you haven't explained what your understanding of scientific evidence is.

That is due to you thinking that everything you disagree with isn't evidence.

That's attacking my understanding. Which you have to do because you have no credible scientific evidence for your religious position :)

That's attacking my understanding.

Asking you to explain your understanding then calling you out for refusing to do so isn't attacking.

It's attempting to pain me as crazy or delusional - you're essentially claiming I'm using special definitions to justify my claims. I'm not - just the scientific method :)

There's no evidence you've provided that qualifies as hard science to back up evolution - but it's not just you, it's everyone. And it's not your fault - it's just not possible. Because evolution is not a real scientific phenomenon :)

It's attempting to paint me as crazy or delusional - you're essentially claiming I'm using special definitions to justify my claim

I am claiming that you refuse to define the scientific method which, as your posts show, is a factual statement.

I'm not using any special definitions :)

They're freely available for everyone to check for themselves - that's the nature of science - anyone can verify it. However, that is not the nature of evolution. No one has ever been able to verify that one species can evolve into another. :)

Why isn't evolution scientific?

It's a speculative narrative only supported by isolated observations and falsified evidence.

It's never been observed - it's only theoretically possible. It's also theoretically possible a gigantic magical unicorn has in fact been dreaming us all up the entire time. Neither of these possibilities are, however, backed by the scientific method. We cannot create tests to verify them. They are only theories :)

I did explain my understanding - it's the same one everyone is taught in science classes across the world. The scientific method. Evolution is not purely science - it's closer to a religious notion :)

it's the same one everyone is taught in science classes across the world

Except the history of your posts show that isn't correct.

See? You can't provide evidence - you have to try to change the subject, attack me, accuse me of lying, et cetera.

This is why I consider your point totally forfeit. You've had nearly a week? to provide evidence - still sitting at zero. You have no scientific evidence of evolution - you merely believe in it religiously.

I am trying to get you to define the terms you are using. That you are willing to type so much but refuse to define scientific method is very telling.

I'm not using any special definition for you to pick apart - Anyone can look up the scientific method.

It simply has not been followed or applied to evolutionary theory :)

Support those statements with evidence.

Support evolution with evidence: )

I am not nor have I ever been religious. Evolution is the religion we're talking about here - it's certainly not science.

Evolution is the religion we're talking about here - it's certainly not science.

When you ignore every evidence showed to you then yeah, of course. But if you actually read the replies sent to you then obviously no, and a toddler knows more about evolution than you.

You literally have a bunch of misinformation about it and keep saying it as if it's some kind of argument - and even worse, you use it to try to justify your stupidity.

What a shame.

Didn't ignore - there's simply no hard scientific evidence. You can't just claim that your observations justify the fairytale - that's not science. Evolution is not science, it's a religious idea.

I'm pretty sure you are just trolling now but let's keep burning you for the funsies.

Didn't ignore

Hmmmm, so why didn't you respond to it? Why did you ignore it? hahah lmao

there's simply no hard scientific evidence

Literally showed you evidence, you ignored. Then you said you ignored because there is no evidence LUCKFOGIC LMAO

You can't just claim that your observations justify the fairytale

I don't think you know how science works, toddler. Observation is a form of evidence if perfomed in a controlled scientific environment - which is the case.

that's not science

Oh, now you are trying to science? LMFAOO

Evolution is not science

Yeah, random guesses without even reading a book or knowing what Evolution is is definitely science. Ok, toddler.

it's a religious idea.

I'm sure you have quite experience on that area.

Gish Gallop

Removed. Rule 5.

Great arguments. Filled with facts and evidence.

Please leave me be - I want nothing to do with you :)

Just not answer lmao, but you need to have the last word since you can't even deny you've been schooled this whole thread.

Evolution is not real - it's not science - it's a religious belief - end of story :)

Evolution is not real - it's not science - it's a religious belief

That's your mantra, and you can't even back it up with supporting evidence. All facts say otherwise, you're alone in your bullshit.

end of story :)

Well for your life maybe, since you're wasting it denying reality. Which is laughable. But I guess when you get older - past the teenager you are - knowledge and reality will eventually hit you.

The burden on proof is on those claiming evolution is real or scientific- it's neither. It's a fable or speculation :)

The burden on proof is on those claiming evolution is real or scientific

And it has been proven and it has been shown to you in this thread. If you choose to ignore that's your problem, but we all now that you can't ignore reality forever.

It's a fable or speculation

You have to back up this claim, but you can't.

Again, you have the burden of proof totally backwards. The onus is on the people making the initial claim - which is that evolution is a real scientific phenomenon. No one has provided any proof in this entire thread - all we have are cartoons, sketches, some stories, some e.coli that stayed e.coli and some bacteria that stayed bacteria.

No one has provided any hard evidence, any scientific proof whatsoever. Evolution is just a story - it's not science :)

Evolution is just a story

Not even when you deliberately ignore the evidence.

I'll link up but you won't read because it's that that's who you are but anyways:

From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!

here you can explore all the known variations of human species:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species

Ardipithecus kadabba: Where Lived: Eastern Africa (Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia) When Lived: Between about 5.8 and 5.2 million years ago Ardipithecus kadabba lived between about 5.8 and 5.2 million years ago. Ardipithecus kadabba was bipedal (walked upright), probably similar in body and brain size to a modern chimpanzee, and had canines that resemble those in later hominins but that still project beyond the tooth row. This early human species is only known in the fossil record by a few post-cranial bones and sets of teeth. One bone from the large toe has a broad, robust appearance, suggesting its use in bipedal push-off. Year of Discovery: 1997. When he found a piece of lower jaw lying on the ground in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia 1997, paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie didn’t realize that he had uncovered a new species. But 11 specimens from at least 5 individuals later, Haile-Selassie was convinced he had found a new early human ancestor. The fossils—which also included hand and foot bones, partial arm bones, and a clavicle (collarbone)—were dated to 5.6–5.8 million years old. One of the specimens, a toe bone, is dated to 5.2 million years old; this fossil has features of bipedal walking. Faunal (fossil animal) evidence from the site indicated that the early humans there lived in a mixture of woodlands and grasslands, and had plenty of access to water via lakes and springs.

maybe another one?

One of the earliest members of the genus Homo, has a slightly larger braincase and smaller face and teeth than in Australopithecus or older hominin species. But it still retains some ape-like features, including long arms and a moderately-prognathic face. Its name, which means ‘handy man’, was given in 1964 because this species was thought to represent the first maker of stone tools. Currently, the oldest stone tools are dated slightly older than the oldest evidence of the genus Homo. Year of Discovery: 1960. A team led by scientists Louis and Mary Leakey uncovered the fossilized remains of a unique early human between 1960 and 1963 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The type speciman, OH 7, was found by Jonathan Leakey, so was nicknamed "Jonny's child". Because this early human had a combination of features different from those seen in Australopithecus, Louis Leakey, South African scientist Philip Tobias, and British scientist John Napier declared these fossils a new species, and called them Homo habilis (meaning 'handy man'), because they suspected that it was this slightly larger-brained early human that made the thousands of stone tools also found at Olduvai Gorge.

Guess that's just religion. Now about dna:

DNA shapes how an organism grows up and the physiology of its blood, bone, and brains. DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are. While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA. Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes. No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes. The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.

religion, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapomorphy_and_apomorphy

In phylogenetics, apomorphy and synapomorphy refer to derived characters of a clade – characters or traits that are derived from ancestral characters over evolutionary history.[2] An apomorphy is a character that is different from the form found in an ancestor, i.e., an innovation, that sets the clade apart ("apo") from other clades. A synapomorphy is a shared ("syn") apomorphy that distinguishes a clade from other organisms.

religion?

One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit. That would be interesting enough on its own. What makes it more interesting is that, the further back one goes, the more different the species appear when compared to today’s species. These overarching trends can also be seen on the individual level, as lineages can be seen changing over time. How do we know, though, that fossil progressions don’t just represent separate, unrelated species? First, they have similarities that suggest they are related (see above reasoning concerning similarities between species). Secondly, they represent a trend, also known as a progression of change. For instance, over time, the species go from low expression of a certain trait to intermediate expression to high expression. Like the evolution of legs, for example. In fact, since we are on the topic, there is no missing link in evolution. Lastly, the fossils are dated and organized by direct means (like radiometric dating) or indirect means (like relative dating using unique marker layers, fossils, or other techniques).

I don't think you even know what both 'religion' and 'science' means LMAO.

Turn over a manufactured product today, and you are likely to see a small sticker or tag that says what country it was made in. Like those tags, species bear the marks of where they came from. These signs of origin might come in the form of repurposed traits, traits that hurt a species chances of surviving or reproducing. Put simply, species are flawed, and it’s these flaws that clearly tell of their natural origin. What’s so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions: Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related? Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography? Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations? Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.

https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/

Now you'll ignore everything, say some bullshit like "I don't understand it because I didn't read it because my religious brain doesn't let me so it's not true cries a river".

Good day, you've been schooled.

You spamming gish gallop isn't exactly an education :)

I'm not religious at all - but keep making baseless claims if you want, doesn't bother me. It also doesn't bother me if you want to believe in evolution - it's your right - but evolution is not science - we can't even honestly say it's real, it's just a philosophical supposition :)

"Science" is knowledge provided and supported by the scientific method - religion is a series of views practices and beliefs based on faith. Evolution is a religion :)

to fool some people into thinking it's a scientific fact.

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Did you just pull the "evolution is just a theory" thing? LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO You really haven't read about it. You can't even argue about the evidence, you just dismiss it as if you have some credibility or even a basis for it. Dude, seek help LOL

Evolution is just part of the creation story for the materialist and atheistic worldview

Oh the hate against atheists, but go ahead keep saying you're not religious hahahahahahah. By the way computers only exist due to an ATHEIST scientist using the same logic, notion and structure of knowledge of the Evolution Theory (theory = law in science, the Theory of Relativity, the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution all have the same status as a scientific fact and you can cry about it but it's true lmao)

it's never been proven and it's essentially unprovable.

Yeah, guess all the fossils literally showing the mutations happening over species aren't real, the devil put fossils here. LMFAO

Many of the "fossils" have been faked :)

Why would a scientific truth need falsified evidence to support it? :)

Do you have proof of faked fossils u/natavism?

Do you have anything that even suggests that reality?

Please show me some yournewswire links about it heuaheuaheuahe

Look into the Piltdown hoax, it's very well known :)

In 1912, the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man

There is no missing link smh, that's something only people who say "EvOlUtIoN iS jUsT a ThEoRY" actually believe.

Thousands of academic resources and studies published over decades: nah

One random fake story from fake people: YEAH DUH I BELIEVE NOW IT'S ALL FAKE DUH

LMAO it was more fun when I thought you were trolling, now it's just sad. Please don't have children, we don't need more people like you into this world :).

Now it looks like you're totally making your own version of history to suit your purposes :)

Welp the same dudes who debunked it acknowledge the veracity of other thousands that you can see with your own eyes. And even more from other countries, colleges and people.

But yeah, it's all fake. Like space and earth, it's all fake. LMAO

If you have any real scientific evidence for evolution, could you please share it?

Yeah, just go to school, remember the last 100 years of paleonthology, stop reading the bible and/or re read this thread. Or the last reply I sent to you (which I'm still laughing about your response) thoroughly written by me.

Again - I'm not religious, I've never been a member of any religion :)

I'm guessing you don't have any scientific evidence for evolution - you haven't posted any so far. Do you have any scientific evidence for evolution? Nothing you've listed is actually scientific at all :)

I'm not religious, I've never been a member of any religion

You don't need to be a member of a religion to be religious. You have a religious mind and religious belief, this is obvious.

Is the earth older than 10k years? Is the Earth 5 billions years old?

The so-called scientists aren't practicing science, so I don't really care what they claim :)

I'm just asking for you to provide scientific evidence of evolution - which you absolutely cannot seem to do. :)

so I don't really care what they claim

So religious.

Is the earth 5 billion years old?

Why would you assume the earth is 5 billion years old? Is that another idea that someone else came up that you believe completely without any scientific backing? :)

HAHAHAHH THERE HE GOES

"I'm not religious" he says..... believe the earth is less than 10k years old.

Ok, we've just entered a whole new level of stupidity and reality denial. I understand why you can't simply accept science now, you're delusional and brainwashed by country american culture (or any idiotic conservative culture).

I don't have any beliefs about the age of the earth, sorry, you're wrong again :)

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

It's not a belief it's a fact, but I bet you don't understand how it's done so here it goes: https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html

estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

A flat earther dude, that's worse than religious people omg I'm amazed to have spotted one irl. HAHAH

I shouldn't be laughing tho, it's sad that your education level is so bad that you can't even look up and see a ball of fire and a ball of rock and not see that we're in a ball aswell.

Take care, the archons are outta get you! Space is a lie, don't look up and don't buy a telescope they have fake images of Saturn, Mars and Jupiter! HAHAHUIHAEOHFIUAE

You believe it's a fact that the earth is 5 billion years old?

You believe it's a fact that the earth is 5 billion years old?

I don't believe, I've seen the studies and methods used to develop the technology to understand that. It's not a belief, it's based on science :)

But you haven't done these tests - you believe it. And you weren't there to verify anything. And we haven't even gotten into the methodology yet :)

So you believe the earth is 5 billion years old?

But you haven't done these tests - you believe it.

I have seen the analysis, the compounds and the system behind it. It's not blind trust.

you weren't there to verify anything

But I'm here now, and so are thousands of scientists all over the world trying to literally debunk it. And they have failed (that's what science really is: propose a theory and support it while others keep attacking so they find mistakes and improve/update it).

So you believe the earth is 5 billion years old?

No, the humanity has discovered that it is around 5 billion years old.

Wanna try again?

Did humanity discover time travel? Because that's the only way we could know for sure :)

It sounds like you're placing your faith in science - which is something, by definition, you should never have to do :)

Do you see now how evolution is your religion? :) You have to believe in it - it cannot be proven :)

Did humanity discover time travel? Because that's the only way we could know for sure

Again, so much ignorance. Time leaves traces, and you can analyse how long time has passed. But you wouldn't know that would you? It's not like I just explained it.... OH WAIT:

It's not a belief it's a fact, but I bet you don't understand how it's done so here it goes: https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html

estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

HAHAHAHAHA Try again son

Time leaves traces? Tell me more!

estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.

Are you blind? Oh wait, you are just a flat earther lmao

I think it's hilarious that you take the flawed estimates of others on total faith and call it science :)

So you have giving up on your arguments? HAh expected. Now you are trying to attack me, which is laughable (like your notion of reality).

Ignoring, dismissing, yeah sounds like a flat earther to me. Reality scares you, did you have a traumatic experience as a child? Reality is not outta get you, it just is.

If you are honestly saying that you believe all religious people are a cancer - this is the definition of "bigot"

Bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Again, trying to shift the narrative because your stupidity have been exposed? HAHAHAHA expected.

You don't have an opinion btw, you have lack of education. And there's no amount of evidence I can show that will change your mind because you are just denying reality due to lack of education when you were a child. Not my problem, but you will have to seek a solution and you know it.

If you are honestly saying that you believe all religious people are a cancer - this is the definition of "bigot"

Bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

You don't seem to be able to carry on a normal conversation with me at all - because you don't seem to be able to accept that I have different opinions than you. And I'm not even one of these religious people that you think are so terrible - Seems like case closed to me :)

Sorry but I quite like that you have revealed yourself to be very bigoted and I think I will start including that in my replies.

I had plenty of education when I was child - that's probably why I can think for myself, but thanks for your concern :) I'm not sure why I would take advice from an admitted bigot anyway :)

-said the flat earther LOL

If you are honestly saying that you believe all religious people are a cancer - this is the definition of "bigot"

Bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

You don't seem to be able to carry on a normal conversation with me at all - because you don't seem to be able to accept that I have different opinions than you. And I'm not even one of these religious people that you think are so terrible - Seems like case closed to me :)

Sorry but I quite like that you have revealed yourself to be very bigoted and I think I will start including that in my replies.

I had plenty of education when I was child - that's probably why I can think for myself, but thanks for your concern :) I'm not sure why I would take advice from an admitted bigot anyway :)

My childhood and education were sufficient such that I did not grow up to be an admitted bigot such as yourself :)

-said the flat earther who thinks science is outta get him

I guess you're probably bigoted against flat earthers too?

Again, here's the definition of bigot - a person who is intolerant of those holding different views of opinions.

Not only do you openly hate and insult all religious people, you are bigoted against some non-religious people too.

Still waiting for you address the main topic btw: do you have any scientific evidence to support your religious notion of evolution? :)

-flat earther trying to educate people on what science is HUEHIUEHIUEHIUEHIUEHIEHIHEIHEIUHEIUEHIUEHIEHAIUHI

Still no scientific evidence of evolution - there are more strings of you admitted to bigoted behavior and spamming all caps than anything else :)

Is that a forfeit?

You can keep saying it as a mantra, but reality won't stop being reality.

I've educated you about evolution, science, scientific method, carbon 14 dating, fossils, earth and space. I'm not sure why you are here yet.

I guess that's a forfeit then - thanks for trying :)

Good luck with your religious beliefs

Nah, the seed has been planted. It's just a matter of time now for you to accep reality.

Sounds like a forfeit to me :)

I'm done playing chess with a pigeon :)

Thanks for the forfeit - over 400 comments and not a single scientific proof of evolution :)

smh

Seems like a forfeit then, thanks

Arguing with retards it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious.

Thanks for the forfeit :)

Please don't engage with me in the future :)

It doesn’t sound like your teacher really understands evolution. In order for a change to take hold, there has to be a random mutation and then an environmental force that essentially kills off anyone without that mutation or doesn’t allow them to reproduce. Just because we don’t need powerful jaws for processed food doesn’t mean that people with strong jaws won’t be able to eat and die, just because there’s not much use for our pinky doesn’t mean that there’s any reason we won’t survive with it. It’s the same reason we have an appendix, we literally don’t need it to survive but enough people with them in the past survived so everyone has it.

There's literally not a single "scientific" sentence in what you just wrote. Just lots of guesses and assumptions, based on the natural philosophy you've been taught.

And I'm not saying this to single you out. It's a widespread belief system, and it causes people to just make up whatever shit they want to suit an evolutionary philosophy.

"Science says that way back when, we did or didn't need that, so this magically changed to that, because that, and obviously that's the way it is."

It's kinda funny how dogmatic it gets, when you step back and observe the whole farce. Not a shred of "science" to be found, but it fits with their belief system. It's kinda like a church doctrine for people who think they've outgrown church doctrines.

Yep - they'll twist what they want "proof" or "science" to mean when it suits them, but it's all just a belief system. Good comment thanks

I’m just trying to clarify what the supposed mechanism of evolution is. A medical professor who thinks that people in the future won’t have teeth because our food is softer now, or that we’ll evolve office chair attached to our asses because of sedentary lifestyles just doesn’t get it.

Bingo. It would more likely happen if say smaller jaws were sexy and the large jawed people couldn't find mate. The gene would be bred out of the gene pool.

Sexual selection is well-documented; I have no idea what you’re talking about.

You can watch evolution happen in real-time with bacteria, too.

Did people miss bio in college?

Sexual selection results in a restriction of genetic diversity, not expanding it, or magically creating more information. Why is it that people who think they really understand evolution can't help but conflate natural selection (reduction in genetic diversity) with genogenesis? (my made up word to describe the "magical" creation of new genetic material)

When has anyone ever observed a bacteria turning into anything other than a... bacteria? Getting one to slightly shift it's digestion after how many hundreds of thousands of generations is not evolution. Unless you already wanted it to be evolution, in which case, people will make up whatever they want to about it.

genogenesis

mutations happen and that's a fact, but you can use your made-up word.

When has anyone ever observed a bacteria turning into anything other than a... bacteria?

never, but you're literally trying to apply the laughably small timeline of humanity to a theory which asserts gradual change over billions of years.

why is it that people think you can observe macroevolution in one lifetime is a better question.

Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble telling me how one "mutates" a circulatory system into existence. A nervous system. Maybe mutating a digestive system is easier? If you accidentally "mutate" any of its components into existence, it won't work. What good is transmuting a heart, if it has no veins or arteries? Or vice versa? How does one transmute even a simple brain into existence from "nothing"? Not just magically creating a brain from nothing, but the nervous system required to connect it to the rest of the body? At the same time. Fully functioning from the get-go.

People use the word "mutation" the same way they use it in comic books. A word twisted into ambiguity to mean whatever they need it to mean. And when people start to suspect that this lunacy might be impossible, they buffer it with "but it took billions of years!", like that will make it sound less ridiculous.

The advantage of studying bacteria is you can witness hundreds of thousands or even millions of generations within a relatively short time. Surely, with a few million chances for the generations to "mutate" into something else, we would've witnessed it by now. I mean, humans supposedly spawned from monkeys in far less. But we can't even see something as simple as a bacteria switch to anything else. A digestive tweak is the best they could muster.

I wonder if they could also then explain how one gets a cell membrane without DNA and how one gets DNA without a cell membrane?

magic!

err... no... that'd be ridiculous...

I mean mutation!!

And only after billions of years, so it doesn't sound too contrived.

You equate mutations to magic when mutations have actually been observed and documented

It's not that mutations are magic. It's the way that "mutations!" are invoked to leap tall incredulous gaps in logic in a single bound!

"We've observed in bacteria that after several hundreds of thousands of generations, some of them can digest something slightly differently. It naturally follows that if we leave it here awhile longer, they will turn into a fish!"

"Don't believe me?! Well, it's totally for reals, you just have to wait... a few billion years.". wink wink

With a tiny sprinkling of "mutation!" and an extra heaping layer of "billions of years", they've created an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's all so very clever.

This is the worst, most ignorant description of evolution I've ever seen. But don't worry about it champ, if it's not in the bible it's a lie

Fuck the Bible.

You seem to think that there are only two possible options, and that we have to pick "teams"?

How very "scientific" of you. wink wink

Fair enough. Generally when someone says stuff as stupid and uninformed as you said, they're religious. What's your excuse?

I'm talking to someone who thinks trillions of complex organisms, with interdependent, complex substructures, ecosystem dependence, and a variety of other unfathomable complications just "mutated!" into existence from nothing.

It's easy for the conversation to get a little stupid when dealing with ideas as stupid as that.

But don't worry. I'm sure if you just wait a few... billion more years, you'll "mutate!" out of those silly notions. Good luck with your journey! Try not to accidentally "mutate!" back into a monkey on your way, though. That would really suck...

You keep putting mutation in quotes. Do you believe mutations are real or not?

And lmao idiot, we didn't evolve from monkeys.

What's your proposal to replace evolution btw?

Don't forget the exclamation mark.

I wouldn't "replace" evolution with anything, the same as I wouldn't replace "Catholicism" with anything. It's an entrenched religion, and like any other religion, no amount of reasoning could talk people out of it.

And why would I share that with you anyway? So you can continue to mock me from your addle brained ignorance?

No thanks :)

You think evolution says humans came from monkeys and you call me ignorant! Lololololol

Come on! Please tell me where you think different species come from! You know all my opinions

"Evolution says"?

Evolution doesn't say anything to me. Does it talk to you? Like, in visions? Or special books? Do you talk back normal to it, or do you have to pray?

I'm glad you get so many lol's from my evolution-from-monkeys trope. It's nice to see such an easily amused mind. Very refreshing.

Now shoo. Go talk to Evolution, and ask it for world peace, or something.

The ghost of Darwin never visits you? Or maybe it's a colloquialism short for "the theory of evolution" says. Hmmm.

Now your turn still! How did different species come about

My issue with your thinking is that you have no viable alternative. You don't seem to believe in religious creationism and you think evolution is ridiculous.

Well, good for you I guess? It comes across as a severe lack of understanding regarding evolution. I'm sure you've read into it at least a little bit, maybe you just misunderstood.

And again, if whatever you DO believe has absolutely no supporting evidence and is just a theory pulled out of your ass, it's pretty worthless. Moreso than evolution.

My pet theory could be just that, no more or less. But if it got forced into schools, with every grant seeking scientist and his cousin trying to shoehorn it into every other unrelated theory, it'd be a problem. I wouldn't mind "evolution" if were accurately labeled as a natural philosophy, or speculative history. But it's not. It's ramrodded down peoples' throat as "scientific" "Fact" when it's neither, and has just as many and more flaws than biblical creationism.

I suspect that the beginnings and "evolutions" of life are electrically driven. That we are based off a common template/foundation/source that expresses itself differently from other creatures by design. Not accident, or random mutations, but with purpose. (I don't know the purpose :)

Some of this is just natural philosophy. But it's a topic I'm casually interested in. Here's a couple short links that touch on it. One is a short article on a landmark abiogenesis experiment from the '50's, and the other is a short 6 minute video on the electric nature of our dna.

https://www.universetoday.com/19889/did-lightning-and-volcanoes-spark-life-on-earth/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NUwYjYYwQZA

C'ya :)

But it's not. It's ramrodded down peoples' throat as "scientific" "Fact" when it's neither, and has just as many and more flaws than biblical creationism.

You lost me. Facts change all the time, it's the scientific process to reanalyse and test known theories to either disprove or strengthen them. Evolution is the current accepted "fact" because it's the most likely explanation given the evidence. And I think your claim it has more flaws than creationism is utter bullshit, frankly.

Your theory is nice, but is apparently based off one experiment and a YouTube video. I'm glad that the scientific world is a little more discerning than you are.

There is nothing scientific about the theory of evolution. It's generally untestable, but the handful of tests that have been applied to it fail miserably. Bacteria remain bacteria, and fruit flies, even when deliberately mutated and accelerated, remain fruit flies. The leap between microevolution and macroevolution is vast, untestable, unreplicated, and unfalsifiable.

The scientific method cannot be applied to it. Because it's strictly a philosophy. A post hoc explanation for observations which could have a variety of explanations. But it's become dogma, to the point that even questioning it is taboo... I mean, heretical... err, blasphemous. It gets nothing but eyerolls and insults from its believers.

And I was being concise, showing you the shortest and simplest intros to the idea. If you want to mock that yoo, then good for you.

Please read this my dude...

We dont 'magically' gain a respitory system, in chemical terms o2 exists naturally as a gas and is highly reactive, carbon in gasious form is not therefor theres more energy transfer from oxygen than carbon. Nature finds the optimum usually. If o2 and co2 are both atmopspherically available then laws of probability dictate a variation of a non-perfect copy will form (mutation) but in cell or asexual reproduction. Here co2 and o2 life forms would branch into the stagnant co2 kingdom and o2 kingdom where o2 has a scientific advantage. Multiply this effect 1,000,000X and complex life forms start forming. Time really is the biggest variable.

In terms of a non-perfect mutation and why this happens it can be both chemical or physical properties that cause these errors. Think of gama and beta radiation or ionic chemical interactions in a polar covalent carbon chain.

BTW, something like "humans will have big eyes because they stare at screens" makes absolutely no sense. If bigger eyes are deemed more attractive or give you a much better chance of surviving then YES, you can induce humans will have bigger eyes. This literally means however that people with smaller eyes need to have an immediate danger such as lack of sight in a war.

The melanin is actually partly correct presumption however given that :

1) The ozone layer burns out. 2) Humans cant exfoliate properly.

In such a scenario high melanin levels are massively advantagous and people without it will simply get skin cancer and die.

Have you actually asked an expert about this or are you just ignorant?

I notice you have never posted here before. Do you usually just swing by random subreddits and call their contributing users ignorant or....?

Either way, I laugh at your deferral to authority. You certainly can't answer my question.

I've definitely posted here before. Not often because users on this sub are insane and aggressive.

My suggestion to you is to go to Amazon and get an intro level book on evolution.

You have zero (0) conspiracy posts. Funny how every subhuman interloper I point this out to conveniently becomes ignorant of the difference between "post" and "comment."

So..... appeal to authority followed by the classic "read a book?" Precious.

I post here a lot so I will ask the question (strange how that matters in a discussion about science) - Have you actually talked to a person who has researched this complex topic?

I noticed you didn't answer.

Some speculate the appendix actually does serve a purpose such as storing good bacteria or even possibly something else. It would make a lot more sense that it actually does serve a purpose. Real estate in our bodies is valuable.

You're incorrect. Natural selection isn't the only mechanism of evolution. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_24

I don't understand what this means

Of course he understands evolution. I'm completely shocked at these comments, as OP's thesis is quite simple and yet everyone seems to miss it.

He is literally saying that in a world where the needs of humans and their interactions with the environment are becoming more and more conductive to the evolutionary traits he is describing (due to a more digitized world), these traits (that he is proposing) would in fact be optimal. Thus humans with these traits would become sexually more attractive, mate more, reproduce more, carry their genes forward. Not to mention that people with such adaptations would have a higher chance of survival. That is exactly what OP is saying. Now are the specific traits he mentions actually traits that would be more conductive for human survival in the new environment humans are creating? That depends. It depends what kind of environment humans will create, but in a techno-dystopia, such traits could be favourable for survival.

A larger skull would mean a larger brain capacity and a less athletic and muscular body would indicate that the entire new world would be based on minimal physical activity and/or effort - everything would be mind based. The skin pigmentation could change based on changes in our atmosphere and the Sun's activity....etc.

Thus even from a regular mainstream view of evolution, OP's ideas make sense. However I personally stand more by the view that genetic mutations are not random, but are intelligently brought forth by the species and beings themselves - however to make any sense of this, one has to revise their whole view of reality and see it as a system where the entirety of nature (and the Cosmos at large) is in constant communication with every part of itself on a quantum level ( r/holofractal has some intriguing theories on this).

I have to say though that I personally would not like to live in a dystopian world where the body of a Grey alien (no offence Greys) would be the optimal evolutionary set-up for a maximum ability to survive, thrive and reproduce, but hey, that's just me.

evolution lolll

https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

The name of the next human root race to appear is "Brazil." I think the expectation is all the current races will merge into one race, and this future race is called "Brazil" by those who do root race stuff. Not sure why they choose Brazil as the name, but it seems to line up with blue eyes and dark skin.

Just going to state the obvious: none in this thread understand how evolution works. There are only those who appeal to authority and, with false bravado, condescend to those who question it.

Evolution is more than the concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest. It is a mechanism by which genes are made, modified, and expressed, and which no one here can explain. They can simply do some hand-waving and at best say "this enzyme does that." No, you have not explained the mechanism by which a fish becomes a human.

No, you have not explained the mechanism by which a fish becomes a human.

A fish doesn't become a human. If you're gonna frame evolution in that manner you're obviously misunderstanding it in some fashion.

Really, because Richard Dawkins himself loves to say in lectures that your great great great great great great (x 1,000) grandfather is a fish.

your great great great great great great (x 1,000) grandfather is a fish.

And that your great great great great great is not a fish nor human. Do you understand it now or do you need drawings?

Evolution in the way we understand it as a modern society is complete bullshit. There's very little supporting evidence for it, a mountain of contradictory evidence against it, but has become a sacred principle of science which is unable to be challenged. Which goes against the fundamental concept of what science is supposed to be. Evolution has become dogmatic and that is held in place by a frankly toxic attitude towards what everyone thinks to be 'science' currently.

So true

There's very little supporting evidence for it

For definition of very little that actually mean lots and lots and lots?

Actually no, and if you'd ever read any literature on evolution that wasn't snarky articles on the internet aimed directly at your sense of superiority you'd know that evolution theory has more holes than swish cheese. Here's an excerpt from a book I'm read right now to point you in the right direction.

Why are you reading a book that is more than thirty years old? Perhaps a news text might be more useful?

if you'd ever read any literature on evolution that wasn't snarky articles on the internet aimed directly at your sense of superiority you'd know that evolution theory

Two points.

1: Looks at book shelf and see lots of such books.

2: Why did you bold theory? It appears that you are using it as a non-scientist would which isn't possible so can you explain to me what you are getting on about?

I'm not here to change your opinion, believe whatever you like. Your user name pretty strongly implies that you have a fixed set of ideals that you can't be dissuaded from.

I'm not here to change your opinion, believe whatever you like. Your user name pretty strongly implies that you have a fixed set of ideals that you can't be dissuaded from.

Well I guess that works as a surrender statement. I mean if you can't address the points attack the person right?

What would you prefer me to do? Spend an hour writing out a long detailed post bringing up all the points I feel relevant and referencing them with sources. Just so you can ignore it. You have your mindset and it isn't likely going to change so why waste my time arguing with a stranger on the internet. I shouldn't have even engaged you in the first place. That's my bad, I can get triggered when seeing this general topic brought up. Science has become dogmatic, which is the opposite of what it is supposed to be.

What would you prefer me to do?

You could discuss things like an adult.

Science has become dogmatic, which is the opposite of what it is supposed to be.

Says the person who refuses to talk and takes a dogmatic stance himself.

No arguments so you're attacking? Expected.

By the way, read more about scientific theories - spoiler: it's much different than your notion of what 'theory' means.

All hail the cult of $cience.

Can you provide sources for this statement?

I love that this book assumes that the readers just don’t know what paleontologists are. Really gives you an idea of the demographic of readers.

Also there’s PLENTY of transitional fossils out there. Ever hear of archaeopteryx?

Those same people will now say that all dinosaurs had feathers. You got another example? Because you know, there should be millions of them, one sort-of-maybe example isn't gunna cut it.

I see you have attracted the same naysayers as I have in this thread - congrats, it's interesting to have dedicated detractors isn't it?

Thanks /u/Sendmyabar - that book you linked (looks like one chapter was called "Problems with Evolution") looks like a must have for me. Can you please give the full title and perhaps any other recommendations for other books about science hoaxers and frauds?

No worries man, I am primarily here to recommend books to people that are interested :). The one that page is from is called, Ancient Mysteries: A history through evolution and magic by Micheal Baigent. I'm only half way through it but it is incredibly interesting.

I would also recommend highly Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky and Cataclysm: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C by D S Allan and J B Delair. Those books will completely change the way you look at human history :).

Awesome - thanks so much! I found a cheap copy of Ancient Mysteries and it's on it's way to me.

I've heard about Velikovsky - I'm trying to get through a book on "the New Chronology" by A Fomenko right now - he references Velikovsky. Are you perhaps familiar with Fomenko's work? Seems right up this alley too - I think you might really enjoy it, I know I am!

It is not possible for a physical body to travel through time. You can use your conscious to travel through time though by entering the higher dimensional plane of energy which is basically a single point that also infinite including all the processes in an infinite loop of the actually physically world in which you are aware as a percieving entity inside the superficial perceptual dimension of a conscious energy.

this isnt how evolution works....WTF???

evolution is only possible for traits that help you survive or adapt for survival.

I love this type of speculation, i shall put my own opinion in.

The thing to consider is that Natural Evolution is increasingly becoming a nonfactor. With our ability to influence evolution through genetic editing we will very very soon be able to guide it ourselves.

large skull with small lower jaw,

Smaller jaw, also means less muscle and thinner neck. Which stands in contradiction to having a bigger skull and brain. Since we need to support this weight via our spine. A Larger skull also requires considerably more blood. However with a smaller neck there is a limit to that.

big eyes with blue iris

No, Blue eyes poorly filter out ionizing radiation. Like UV. Blue eyes are a mere Aesthetic Bonus. (one which i possess, Oh yeah!)

3 fingers and thumb

I dont see that happening. We use all our fingers, the more complex and technological we become. the more fingers...the better.

slender body

yeah, i can see that! If supply of food has never been an issue for generations then its smart that the body doesnt need to spend energy to store fat.

short stature

Not with a big head, that wouldnt really work. Not in our gravity at least.

pigmented and dark, possibly leathery skin

We mostly live indoors nowadays, we are not exposed to the Ionizing radiation of the sun as much as our forefathers. so i dont see that happening.

You are trying to compare apples to rocks. I know you are trying to make the ageold comparison that "the grays" are infact timetravellers.

You are forgetting that as i mentioned before natural evolution is a burden we are soon going to be rid of. With that we will age slower and eventually become technically Immortal. Then there is the fact of using technology to enhance ourselves. Trust me, alot in our bodies is replaceable. Take our ears for example.

Ears fucking suck!!!

If you have a device in your head that takes over the ears function you can hear from 0.1 hz to 200khz easily, and without loss. You can exclude other sounds and you turn off your ears when you wanna sleep. Otherwise you can just listen to music as loud as you want because...its not really loud...you just think its loud. So no harm done. You can literally call your SO and have them in your head all day (for better or worse)... Our natural ears are always on...you cant filter out sounds. You are forced to listen to everything and they degrade really quickly...All in all pisspoor design.

Then you have eyes...

You have the Brain...

You have the heart.

There is sooo much that can be easily replaced and enhanced in the human body. The temptation to do this will be too big to resist. Our bodies will merely become Immortal modular vessels for our consciousness. Once Nanotechnology and Nanites become a thing, we could have all those things without even giving up any of our Aesthetic Goodies. Any changes due to a different enviroment would then be options without consequence.

You need radiation resistance? Well you just ask your cells to make exactly that. You want to see just the IR or UV spectra? Ez buddy!

Consequently Humans in the Far future should look very similar to us (as in Supermodels with superhuman abilities).

The gray aliens on the other hand, well first thing, we dont even know if they actually exist. Lets say they do, their Physical appearence suggest that they evolved in an enviroment with considerably less gravity then we have. The big black eyes mean that the planet mostly had a thick atmosphere or that their eyes are evolved from insect type eyes (ours are basically fish eyes). The gray skin could mean anything.

the biggest problem in your theory though is the timetravel aspect.

Unfortunatly reverse timetravel is bound to some rules. The biggest rule would be that you cant travel back in time to a point where you havent invented timetravel. Since there is no particle that travels backwards through time. So you have no way to communicate in the reverse.

Imagine it like this. You need to open a very specific wormhole that goes to a certain place and time. Lets say i open it to 10 minutes in the future.

So i press "Start" and have to wait then for 10 minutes IRL. I go make some tea for 2 and when thats done i see the wormhole opening. I go in and come out. So there are 2 Me then, and we can drink a tea together. But the wormhole is still there. so we both wait for a bit and go back together with kitchen knives and murder ourselves drinking tea.

The Point is, this type of timetravel requires the multiverse theory to be correct, each time any particle or wave travels through the open wormhole a new universe is "created". As is the theory that every quantum choice happens. And our reality is merely a fuzzy mishmash of different realities overlapping. This means that there wont be any paradoxes. Still it means that you cant travel back to a time before you openend the wormhole. Because you can only go back to the point at which you created the wormhole in the first place...not further.

If you really wanna get into the nitty gritty of Alien life i would highly suggest taking a course in astrobiology. Its super fascinating. If that isnt available, microbiology, Virology and Biophysics should supply you with a strong understanding of evolution of very different systems.

Evolution=science fiction

100% accurate - I've been calling it a religious idea or philosophical outlook as well - Whatever you want to call it it's certainly not hard science.

humans have been around way longer than our current understanding. evolution can happe nin a few generations.

As I have explained, the burden of proof isn't on me.

Thats a weird way of saying you have no supporting evidence to support your claims...

Just saying the burden isnt on you doesnt absolve you from even responding to arguments. Its a bullshit deflection for people who arent familiar with the subject matter.

Just say you dont know.

I'm not sure why you think you have any power here - power to force me to answer questions, power of authority - you are just another reddit user.

All I can do is point out the problems with your claims. I cant force you to support your claims or force you to explain your hilariously wrong position.

The burden of proof is on people claiming evolution is real, and they have not met it - and they cannot, because evolution is just a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

You havent bothered to address a single point I have raised, you havent bothered to look at the information I have given.

Its like you asked someone for the time then have your hands over your ears going lalalalalala and then complaining that no one will tell you what time it is.

So no I cant force you to listen to my evidence and I cant force you to explain yourself.

Later.

It's not anti-intellectualism - it's the truth. Anyone is free to go look - But intellectuals already know there's no proof evolution is real at all - it's a philosophical claim. No basis in reality or in science.

So you admit there's no evidence that one species can come from another?

Actually there is. We cannot in a single lifetime observe this process in large organisms with long lifespans or long gestation periods. We observe this process often in microorganisms. The flu virus for example, can evolve into a new strain of itself almost yearly.

Lads, let's just call a spade a spade.

Liar.

Fuck the Bible.

You seem to think that there are only two possible options, and that we have to pick "teams"?

How very "scientific" of you. wink wink

At this point I feel like you are just trolling. U/lemme-explain has cited a few widely accepted scientific theorys that cannot directly be seen and you keep spouting that just because you can't see something makes it not real. This just isn't true like he has explained, you seem to have not read and keep to your only response of not being able to "see" evolution.

I'm not here to change your opinion, believe whatever you like. Your user name pretty strongly implies that you have a fixed set of ideals that you can't be dissuaded from.

Apparently they didn't dumb it down enough for you.

Change over time is the same as evolution now? Lol

Just keep changing whatever definitions you want to, I guess. Keep referring to me as a creationist in a derogatory way as well - it really shows your prejudice.

Evolution is not science - it has not been subjected to the scientific method, it's just a speculative explanation that carries no real weight :)

100% accurate - I've been calling it a religious idea or philosophical outlook as well - Whatever you want to call it it's certainly not hard science.

You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence some 20 comments later

Actually I did, you even responded to it.

Right - which is harassment.

Please explain how responding to multiple comments is harassment when I do it but OK when you do it.

Please leave me be - I want nothing to do with you :)

I'm not wrong - evolution is simply not scientific in any way. It's a religious notion :)

Evolution is not real - it's not science - it's a religious belief

That's your mantra, and you can't even back it up with supporting evidence. All facts say otherwise, you're alone in your bullshit.

end of story :)

Well for your life maybe, since you're wasting it denying reality. Which is laughable. But I guess when you get older - past the teenager you are - knowledge and reality will eventually hit you.

it is not demonstrable, it's just a philosophical stance

Yes it is, fossils, virus, our own dna, it all shows up.

Definitely not science in any way

You really don't know what science is. By the way, thousands of scientists from all over the world with different fundings who spent their whole lives studying it all came to conclusion (not at the same time) that this theory is actually very true. So much that it has the same status as Gravity, Big Bang and Relativity. But I'm your random words are enough to you to make up your mind LMAO.

If you think evolution is science, please prove it!

It has been done for over 100 years now, try to catch up.

All you've done so far is attempt to explain away my position without providing any sort of evidence yourself

You literally ignored every reply in this thread with information - as you will do with mine right now. Also, I don't feel obligated to show proof to a flat earther that the earth isn't flat and the same with people who deny the reality of Evolution.

Guess the devil put dinossaurs and fossils here to confuse you.

What a troll. If you are able to then respond to the reply that I've already done linking you to multiple sources and showing you multiple evidence and arguments and elaborate you don't find it truthful.

You can't because you know they are real, but it'd be extremely pleasant and funny to watch the mental breakdown you'd have just by reading it. Or maybe ask someone else.. like alex jones, cooper, a priest or your sky god who magically put animals here and for millions of years they didn't mutate, reproduce or change at all.

Yeah, earth is 10k years old right? (spoilers: no) HUE

Again - I'm not religious, I've never been a member of any religion :)

I'm guessing you don't have any scientific evidence for evolution - you haven't posted any so far. Do you have any scientific evidence for evolution? Nothing you've listed is actually scientific at all :)

You haven't been able to give a single example of science that supports evolution - all you have is some random observations and your precious narrative :)

Sorry, that's not science :)

Why do you think the earth is 5 billion years old?

I'm just talking about your total lack of scientific evidence for things you seem to be convinced are "science"

:)

How is asking you to define things attacking your understanding? As of yet you haven't explained what your understanding of scientific evidence is.

See? You can't provide evidence - you have to try to change the subject, attack me, accuse me of lying, et cetera.

This is why I consider your point totally forfeit. You've had nearly a week? to provide evidence - still sitting at zero. You have no scientific evidence of evolution - you merely believe in it religiously.