DNA shows there is no evidence of evolution according to scientists

I fear you may be correct.

So a black person just popped out a white woman randomly and started multiplying with itself,creating the black race?

That's fucking stupid and youre fucking stupid for believing that. Black people have dark skin because of environmental stimuli (the sun perhaps), the ONLY mechanism of "evolution" is environmental stimulus.

Cave creatures have bad vision because of a lack in visual stimuli. Its not fucking rocket science.

If i feed my chickens hemp oil the eggs are sweeter by changing the stimulus, i didnt causes a fucking mutation. Dont need Bill Nyke the tranny dyke to tell me.

Why don't you go fuck a chicken and see if you can evolve it with your stimuli. Youd have a better chance than a chicken randomly shitting out a whale on a bicycle some day or whatever insanity you believe.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Black people do 'pop out' white skinned people all the time. It's called abinism and it's the result of a mutation.

Are you saying mutations don't happen or what?

Don't worry, he's not.

Sometimes I think they're the same person.

I didn't even watch it because he must be an idiot because the DNA that you're born with actually changes and evolves as you get older so yes you absolutely do evolve and DNA absolutely does change

Well, he is a JW and I am not.

We both believe in something, but that something surely is not based on random chance events.

Sometimes I think you both share the same indoctrinated braincell. Sometimes. Maybe.



[link to www.mirror.co.uk (secure)]

Don't forget, you are supporting this horseshit and call it science.



I'm always open for your predictions on the evolution of humankind if you have any. When will a non-human be born from a human? It's been 400k years. What happen?

Yeah. No.

You must be one of those 'everything evolves' all the time guy.

Evolution isn't random.

I don't support the conclusions of that article you posted.

A non human will never be born from a human. That would actually disprove evolution theory. Speciation happens over multiple generations. Every generation is the same species as its parent. This has been explained to you before.

But evolution is random.

You don't support the article, but that does not change the fact it's based on evolution theory.

If the offspring is always the same as its parent, how does a
a cowlike creature evolve into a whalelike creature?

“Life got started on earth somehow 3.5 billion years ago. Just because we don't understand how that happened, there is no need to call upon the supernatural.”
........Talk about contradicting yourself...

(And remember, DNA is pure science, not supernatural)

It's not random at all. It's the opposite. The fastest gazelle escapes the lion, rather than some gazelles just surviving randomly. Nature selects traits based on their survival advantage. How is that random?



Do you understand that website is not a scientific journal? The author of that click bait garbage understands evolution even less than you do. 2100 is only 80 years away. No biologist thinks that humans will evolve an extra eyelid in that amount of time.



This is exactly what I've been explaining to you for 3 years. You still don't know how evolution works. The offspring is not 'always the same as its parent.' The offspring is always slightly different from the parent. This is why evolution happens.

What I said is the the offspring is always the same species as its parent. Each generation there are mutations. These are changes in the sequence of genes inherited from parents. A few mutations won't result in a new species, but if you keep adding mutations, over multiple generations, eventually you get an organism that can not reproduce with its ancestral population. At this point, speciation has occurred.

I had that happen and now I got 48 chromosomes!

Right, but if the fastest gazelle is an idiot, it will still be eaten by an even dumber lion destroying that beautiful fantasy of yours.

What if the gazelle accidently runs into a swamp and gets stuck into mud and gets eaten by 5 alligators while the lion cries over its lost prey?

Fact of the matter is, you are convinced all organisms gradually evolved over eons of time. You still have no evidence for any of this (read none exists) and you contradict yourself in every two posts.

Again you claim on the one hand the offspring is always the same as its parent, but on the next post you open by saying that the offspring is different as its parent and thus evolution happens.

Believe me, I clearly understand what you believe and you can continue believing it for all I care. I'm just saying I think its horseshit.

Huh?? I think you missed the point. In nature, which individual reproduces is not randomly determined. Whether it's the strongest, the fastest, the smartest, the most attractive or the most disease resistant, nature selects the traits that are beneficial. Do you understand?



First, I didn't contradict myself once. Second, I've given you plenty of evidence. Here is some of it again: [link to media0.giphy.com (secure)]

Why does the equine fossil record look like this if horses haven't evolved?

Why does the quantity of ERVs shared between species perfectly match how related they are according to evolution theory? And why does this perfectly match the sequence in which these clades appear in the fossil record? Explain.



Are you trying to be obtuse? I was very clear. Every generation is slightly different from its parent, but every generation is the same species as its parent. That's not a contradiction. You can't be this stupid.



If you understood it, you wouldn't keep asking the same questions and making the same mistakes. You wouldn't think that click bait article accurately represented evolution theory.

There is proof of God in our human DNA!!

But man is in denial.

Some asshole took over the narrative.

God's voice cannot be FELT in the human heart anymore.

God will destroy it all and start again.

Shouldn't you be on a street corner begging for booze money or something?

Either provide arguments and evidence or keep your schizophrenic ranting to yourself.

Right. And as I said, if the sexiest, smartest and fastest deer runs into a swamp and dies in the mud, the evolution process has to start over. You've stated this many times before and this time around you did the exact same thing. You never start out with one or two organisms of the same species, you start out with base of 5 million organisms of the same species whereupon natural selection can do its selecting.

You seem not to grasp that natural selections does not create, it merely selects what is readily available in the genes. Random mutation does the'creating'. You know this, right?

The horse hoof sequence has already been debunked by the scientific community, there is no point in me stating this because you simply ignore all scientific efforts that go against your belief. Same for your ERV argument. Here we are again, you believe everything gradually evolved over millions of years and all you have is a handful of dead horselike animals nicely lined up and some nanotech to conclude evolution is an actual thing.

Amusing to see that you believe it took roughly 50 million years of random mutations for a horselike creature to evolve a single toe from three tows. Those are quite the odds.

What? It doesn't have to start over because there's still an entire population of deer. Evolution affects populations.

Within a population, mutations and variation occur. A mutation that is fatal, or prevents reproduction will immediately be removed from the population when the individual carrying that mutation dies. Mutations that reduce the chance of survival, will statistically be passed to the next generation at a lower rate than the mutations that increase the chance of survival.

Now think, what is the long term consequence of this? The answer is adaption. The population -overall- will accumulate beneficial changes faster than negative ones. This means that a population will not change randomly, but it will be guided towards adaption to its specific environment.



There was never a time when there was only one or two deer, otherwise they would have gone extinct. Why would I start with one or two?



That's exactly why Evolution is not random. The random mutations are being filtered through the process of natural selection.



It has not been debunked you lying dipshit. Go ahead and provide a source for that. You can't. Instead you'll just say 'there's no point because you will just ignore it.' You're not fooling anyone.



That's what the evidence suggests. Unlike you, I have evidence.

Well I guess we all know who won this argument

This means that a population will not change randomly, but it will be guided towards adaption to its specific environment.

Guided by what? Natural selection?

There was never a time when there was only one or two deer, otherwise they would have gone extinct. Why would I start with one or two?

This makes me question your intellectual capabilities.

That's exactly why Evolution is not random. The random mutations are being filtered through the process of natural selection.


One more contradiction. Evolution is not random, mutations are random, but natural selection undoes the randomness. Exactly.
How and why is that so?

It has not been debunked you lying dipshit. Go ahead and provide a source for that. You can't. Instead you'll just say 'there's no point because you will just ignore it.' You're not fooling anyone.

Ofcourse it has been, it's a very common item in books written by scientists disagreeing with evolution theory.

That's what the evidence suggests. Unlike you, I have evidence.


You are confusing fossils with evidence and interpretation with facts.

Not a day goes by that the theory of evolution isn't tested by new research and invariably it's validated.

Guided by what? Natural selection?

Yes. Life evolves to suit its environment.

This makes me question your intellectual capabilities.

That's funny. Do you understand that evolution theory does not require a time when there was only two deer?

One more contradiction. Evolution is not random, mutations are random, but natural selection undoes the randomness. Exactly.
How and why is that so?

I haven't contradicted myself once, you're just confused. I just explained to you how natural selection 'undoes the randomness.' Do I need to repeat myself?

Meiosis randomly shuffles genes. Does that mean your birth was random? Likewise, the fact that mutations can occur at random does not mean evolution as a whole is random. This isn't too complicated.

Ofcourse it has been, it's a very common item in books written by scientists disagreeing with evolution theory.

You mean the less than 5% of scientists that write Creationist propaganda? They're lying. They'll say anything to fleece money from science deniers like you. Why do you accept their word on faith but you ignore the 90% of scientists who disagree with you?

Go ahead and explain how it was debunked. You can't.

You are confusing fossils with evidence and interpretation with facts.

Fossils are evidence. What the hell are you talking about?

jesus christ, you need help.

Why would I need help?

Oh and your advice goes against your own doctrine.

'Science deniers like me'?

I hope you are able to understand that i am very fine with most things science has achieved, discovered and or created.

I am not finding anything scientific about evolution theory and i think it should not be in the cannon of science for obvious reasons.

Science denier loled. Oh boy.