Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,509 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 204,903
Pageviews Today: 339,291Threads Today: 106Posts Today: 1,978
04:58 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77917949
United States
12/04/2019 03:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Then why is 85% of today's population RH+ (Rhesus monkey) which must prove we evolved or somehow part monkey?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


Edit

A name according to geneticists who are trying to figure out the puzzle. Again my main question is about dinosaurs. Why do they continuously show up in Homo sapien culture not as large bones, but as giant “dragons” or accurate pictures? If they have lived till modern man, surely our timeline is wrong in the way modern science dictates. After all, all we have are theories, which are scientific guesses, and as I stated before, almost all cultures believe in a global flood, which would certainly through the fossil record into a mess from mixing fossils by density. Again, I’m in between, however, the only way YEC can work is through a global flood that quickly created fossils and quickly laid sediment.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77917949
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77888777
Austria
12/04/2019 03:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Great post!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78212610
Australia
12/04/2019 03:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
I just love how the AC's appear to be the actual intellect
in threads like this.
Irony?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78210061
Australia
12/04/2019 04:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The first four letters of "evolution" spelled backwards is...

"love"

leaving us with "ution". A suffix meaning to "take action".

love backwards in action.

John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Form of mockery.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77962240
United States
12/04/2019 05:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Evolution was an idea created by a free mason and admitted to be flawed by many very intelligent people throughout history.


Anyone who believes this all just happened and evolved without a creator , is drinking the koolaid and in line for the slaughter....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77962240
United States
12/04/2019 05:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The first four letters of "evolution" spelled backwards is...

"love"

leaving us with "ution". A suffix meaning to "take action".

love backwards in action.

John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Form of mockery.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78210061


Bingo. Satan and his minions constantly mock and copy God because there is nothing new under the sun....
Coy

User ID: 72695747
United States
12/04/2019 05:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
platypus
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57893709
United States
12/04/2019 05:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
i've looked at the timelines of all the previous hominid species and each one comes to an end. which is an indication of extinction. i could not find a single species "transitioning" into another species. i also could not find a species that transitioned into homo-sapiens. i could not find a species that transitioned into neanderthals. i could not find a species that transitioned into homo-habilus.
 Quoting: bartroberts


If you've looked at the hominin fossil record, then you know that the fossils become gradually more human-like as you move forward through time. Why is that? Isn't that what we would expect to find if the early hominins evolved into the later ones?

i see there is a 4 million year gap between homo-sapiens and australopithecines, but could not find any other species that connect humans to them. I also do not believe a species with 24 pairs of chromosome could "evolve" into a species with 23 pairs of chromosome.
 Quoting: bartroberts


You just mentioned some of the hominins that exist between sapien and Australopithecus. The order goes: Australopiothecus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, homo Sapien. Each one has a bigger brain, and smaller jaw than the previous one. Each one is slightly more human than the last. You think that's just a coincidence?

A species can change its chromosome number. Donkeys and horses have different chromosome numbers, yet they are related. Humans with down syndrome have an extra chromosome.

i've asked in other subs, "what is the name of the species that "evolved' into homo-sapiens" and no one could give me an answer. many called me stupid or wrongly claimed we're related to the other hominid species, but no one has yet to provide a scientific name of the species that homo-sapiens evolved from, because it doesn't exist.
 Quoting: bartroberts


The most common opinion is that Homo sapien evolved from Heidelbergensis. Heidelbergensis appeared in Africa, and then migrated out into other parts of the world, where they encountered other species of hominin. They divided into three populations. The ones in Africa became Sapien, the ones in Europe/Asia became Neanderthal, and the ones in the East became Denisovans.

now, i believe micro-evolution does happen. an individual species will physically change depending on its environment or food source. for instance, the various types of finches. but i do not believe in macro-evolution. a finch will never transition or evolve into a seagull. in the same way, australopithecine, a primate could never transition or "evolve" into a hominid.
 Quoting: bartroberts


Hominids actually are primates, but I know what you mean. How do you know one couldn't evolve into the other? That's just your assumption.
A finch won't transition into a seagull, because animals don't evolve into other species that already exist. However, even Creationists agree that different species of bird evolved from a common ancestor.

drawing a line between two separate species does not indicate that they are related. it's just a line drawn between two mutually exclusive species.
 Quoting: bartroberts


Obviously, the lines themselves are not evidence. No body thinks that. We 'draw lines' between species because the genetic evidence (such as shared ERV's),the fossil record, and taxonomic classification indicate they are related.

and to those who insist we are related to the other hominid species - WE ARE NOT!!!!
 Quoting: bartroberts


Prove it.

the chart showing the progression of hominid species is brainwashing at its finest. each previous species did not "evolved" into the next species.
 Quoting: bartroberts


That's true. Neanderthal didn't evolve into Sapien.

all species are mutually exclusive.
 Quoting: bartroberts


Nope. Speciation has been observed.

the other hominid species have different scientific terms because they are all unique separate species that have no relations to homo-sapiens.
 Quoting: bartroberts


You don't know that. that's your assumption.

besides a very small percentage of caucasians who posses traces of neanderthal dna, homo-sapiens do not have any dna connecting them to any of the other hominid species that have been discovered.
 Quoting: bartroberts


Wrong. All Europeans and asians have neanderthal DNA, and some populations also have DNA from Homo Denisovan.

neanderthals, denisovans, homo floriensis, and homo sapiens all existed at the same time and yet none are related and there is no evidence to indicate a progression of transitional species that eventually resulted in each mutually exclusive species.
 Quoting: bartroberts


They interbred with each other, indicating they are related. And this interbreeding led to us. The entire hominin fossil record indicates a progression. As you move forward, brains get bigger, jaws get smaller, legs get longer. They become more human-like over time.

and if you look at any timeline of human existence in the fossil record, you will see that the last species of australopithecines co-existed with homo-habilus.

so that means when the first upright walking hominid with 23 pairs of chromosomes "appeared" there were australopithecines with their 24 pairs of chromosome still swinging in trees.
5adancelmao
 Quoting: bartroberts


We don't know if Homo habilus had 24 pairs of chromosomes. Domestic dogs come from wolves, yet wolves are still around. A population can diverge into two species, with one of those species changing at a faster rate.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78217357


Not a single genetic mutation has ever been found to be beneficial. The selective breeding or adaptation of species to changing environments into innumerable variants that Darwin postulated his theory on proves only that the genetic diversity is already there in the genetic code, all of those variants were still the same species. There is not a single iota of evidence that one species can "evolve" into another

/thread
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76863067
United States
12/04/2019 06:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Why was my comment about RH+ deleted? I may not be a scientist but I pose a strong question none of you want to answer! RH+ means Rhesus Monkey & 85% of Today's population is RH+ how is that not a sign of evolution
Icebear

User ID: 75472325
United States
12/04/2019 06:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
i've looked at the timelines of all the previous hominid species and each one comes to an end. which is an indication of extinction. i could not find a single species "transitioning" into another species. i also could not find a species that transitioned into homo-sapiens. i could not find a species that transitioned into neanderthals. i could not find a species that transitioned into homo-habilus.
 Quoting: bartroberts


Good thinking. That is because there aren't any such.

All available evidence says that when CroMagnon humans first set foot on Earth, all of their fancy tools and weapons and artwork were already in place. That is not compatible with any sort of an evolutionary scheme; it is compatible with thinking that modern humans CAME HERE, fully formed, from somewhere else in our system (Ganymede Hypothesis):

[link to www.bearfabrique.org]


The Neanderthal and other hominids were very advanced bipedal apes with huge dark-world eyes; they were not primitive humans. We are not descended from hominids and we have never interbred with any of them. Any Neanderthal DNA found in modern humans will come from early humans EATING Neanderthals, not having sex with them. The first experience early humans ever had with Neanderthals was watching friends and family members being killed and eaten by them. Eating an occasional Neanderthal which had been killed in battle would just amount to Sending the Neanderthals a message in their own language.

Danny Vendramini's theory of predation BY Neanderthals leading more gracile hominids into a fast process of evolution into Cro Magnon man does not work for numerous reasons. But his Neanderthal reconstructions absolutely match up with everything we actually know about Neanderthals.



'If the wankers do not now come to their senses and clean up their stupid act, they may anticipate a rain of ruin from the sky, the like of which has never been seen on this Earth,,,'
Icebear

User ID: 75472325
United States
12/04/2019 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The Ganymede Hypothesis and the total demise of human evolution theories should serve as final coffin nails for Chuck Darwin's BS theory of evolution. Other than that, of course, evolution is a bunch of BS generally; it doesn't work for ANY kind of animals.


A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
'If the wankers do not now come to their senses and clean up their stupid act, they may anticipate a rain of ruin from the sky, the like of which has never been seen on this Earth,,,'
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57893709
United States
12/04/2019 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Evolution was an idea created by a free mason and admitted to be flawed by many very intelligent people throughout history.


Anyone who believes this all just happened and evolved without a creator , is drinking the koolaid and in line for the slaughter....
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77962240

Evolution was postulated because Atheists could not explain the creation of life or genetic diversity without it.

When you listen to their "theories" about how life first came into existence the ridiculousness is really obvious,not far removed from Frankenstein movie... as it is with their theory that the universe is the result of nothing exploding for no reason and arranging itself into the complexity of the universe.
Any competent physicist will tell you things which re not artificially manipulated or created do not become more complex over time, they break down into simpler things. a basic fundamental law of physics is the Second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease over time. Isolated systems always evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy.

entropy: the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.


what this says is the universe should be doing the opposite of what it is without outside manipulation, and species cannot evolve into more complex ones without intelligent intentional manipulation. this is why all scientists of note that predate the Einstein era were all creationists who believed in a sentient consciousnesses' intelligent arrangement of the universe.

My theory is the entire universe itself is that sentient consciousness, and that there was no beginning and will be no end of it.
Humans have a great deal of difficulty integrating infinity into a belief system, everything has to have beginning and an end.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57893709
United States
12/04/2019 06:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Why was my comment about RH+ deleted? I may not be a scientist but I pose a strong question none of you want to answer! RH+ means Rhesus Monkey & 85% of Today's population is RH+ how is that not a sign of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


it means no such thing. All it means is a type of specific antigen is either present or not present on the surface of red blood cells, persons having inherited such antigens being designated Rh+ (Rh positive) and persons lacking them, a much smaller group, being designated Rh− . it comes from the fact that rhesus monkeys also have this antigen. So do many many other creatures.

it doesn't mean we evolved from monkeys any more than us having iron in red blood cells means we evolved from them. what it probably indicates in my opinion that somewhere along the way a genetic mutation occurred that was not so detrimental that it caused the mutant to be incapable of reproduction and survival, and the trait was passed on like blue eyes, big ears or male pattern baldness

cruise..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76493777
United States
12/04/2019 06:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
i've looked at the timelines of all the previous hominid species and each one comes to an end. which is an indication of extinction. i could not find a single species "transitioning" into another species. i also could not find a species that transitioned into homo-sapiens. i could not find a species that transitioned into neanderthals. i could not find a species that transitioned into homo-habilus.

i see there is a 4 million year gap between homo-sapiens and australopithecines, but could not find any other species that connect humans to them. I also do not believe a species with 24 pairs of chromosome could "evolve" into a species with 23 pairs of chromosome.

i've asked in other subs, "what is the name of the species that "evolved' into homo-sapiens" and no one could give me an answer. many called me stupid or wrongly claimed we're related to the other hominid species, but no one has yet to provide a scientific name of the species that homo-sapiens evolved from, because it doesn't exist.

now, i believe micro-evolution does happen. an individual species will physically change depending on its environment or food source. for instance, the various types of finches. but i do not believe in macro-evolution. a finch will never transition or evolve into a seagull. in the same way, australopithecine, a primate could never transition or "evolve" into a hominid.

drawing a line between two separate species does not indicate that they are related. it's just a line drawn between two mutually exclusive species.

and to those who insist we are related to the other hominid species - WE ARE NOT!!!!

the chart showing the progression of hominid species is brainwashing at its finest. each previous species did not "evolve" into the next species.

all species are mutually exclusive.

the other hominid species have different scientific terms because they are all unique separate species that have no relations to homo-sapiens.

besides a very small percentage of caucasians who posses traces of neanderthal dna, homo-sapiens do not have any dna connecting them to any of the other hominid species that have been discovered.

neanderthals, denisovans, homo floriensis, and homo sapiens all existed at the same time and yet none are related and there is no evidence to indicate a progression of transitional species that eventually resulted in each mutually exclusive species.

and if you look at any timeline of hominids in the fossil record, you will see that the last species of australopithecines co-existed with homo-habilus.

so that means when the first upright walking hominid with 23 pairs of chromosomes "appeared" there were australopithecines with their 24 pairs of chromosome still swinging in trees.
5adancelmao
 Quoting: bartroberts


Lol, someone obviously never went or paid attention in school.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76863067
United States
12/04/2019 06:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Why was my comment about RH+ deleted? I may not be a scientist but I pose a strong question none of you want to answer! RH+ means Rhesus Monkey & 85% of Today's population is RH+ how is that not a sign of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


it means no such thing. All it means is a type of specific antigen is either present or not present on the surface of red blood cells, persons having inherited such antigens being designated Rh+ (Rh positive) and persons lacking them, a much smaller group, being designated Rh− . it comes from the fact that rhesus monkeys also have this antigen. So do many many other creatures.

it doesn't mean we evolved from monkeys any more than us having iron in red blood cells means we evolved from them. what it probably indicates in my opinion that somewhere along the way a genetic mutation occurred that was not so detrimental that it caused the mutant to be incapable of reproduction and survival, and the trait was passed on like blue eyes, big ears or male pattern baldness

cruise..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


So then explain to those of us who don't have it and are RH- esp. O- who are universal blood donors, seems quite a mystery like maybe genetic engineering took place at some point
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78215486
United States
12/04/2019 06:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
I like Rupert Sheldrake's quote about the big bang theory of the universe. “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”

We are learning that the Earth is subjected to repeated cycles of catastrophes. This also matches the fossil record. Species appear, show little to no morphological change. Then they go away. Then new species appear.

This cycle also seemed to be understood by many ancient cultures. The Greeks, the Vedic culture, the Hopi. The Norse, in Raganrok. The esoteric as well. Fulcanelli and the Great Cross at Hendaye.

Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a book Mankind in Amnesia.

The subject that Immanuel Velikovsky has chosen is the psychological condition and case history of the human race. Virtually every aspect of human behavior, every pattern in human history, and every article of human belief, if examined and illuminated in the light of the thesis of this book, reveals how human thought and action have been shaped and molded by repressed collective memories of cosmic catastrophes that befell our ancestors as recently as one hundred generations ago

Charles Darwin's phyletic gradualism, and Geology's "Doctrine of Uniformity," have lulled us to sleep, and led us down a blind pathway about our real story on this planet.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76493777
United States
12/04/2019 06:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Why was my comment about RH+ deleted? I may not be a scientist but I pose a strong question none of you want to answer! RH+ means Rhesus Monkey & 85% of Today's population is RH+ how is that not a sign of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


it means no such thing. All it means is a type of specific antigen is either present or not present on the surface of red blood cells, persons having inherited such antigens being designated Rh+ (Rh positive) and persons lacking them, a much smaller group, being designated Rh− . it comes from the fact that rhesus monkeys also have this antigen. So do many many other creatures.

it doesn't mean we evolved from monkeys any more than us having iron in red blood cells means we evolved from them. what it probably indicates in my opinion that somewhere along the way a genetic mutation occurred that was not so detrimental that it caused the mutant to be incapable of reproduction and survival, and the trait was passed on like blue eyes, big ears or male pattern baldness

cruise..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


So then explain to those of us who don't have it and are RH- esp. O- who are universal blood donors, seems quite a mystery like maybe genetic engineering took place at some point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


Nope, genetic aberration, like B type that took hold in the populace. RH negs aren't special beyond blood donations. They actually have a higher risk of everything from cancer to disease statistically speaking.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57893709
United States
12/04/2019 06:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Why was my comment about RH+ deleted? I may not be a scientist but I pose a strong question none of you want to answer! RH+ means Rhesus Monkey & 85% of Today's population is RH+ how is that not a sign of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


it means no such thing. All it means is a type of specific antigen is either present or not present on the surface of red blood cells, persons having inherited such antigens being designated Rh+ (Rh positive) and persons lacking them, a much smaller group, being designated Rh− . it comes from the fact that rhesus monkeys also have this antigen. So do many many other creatures.

it doesn't mean we evolved from monkeys any more than us having iron in red blood cells means we evolved from them. what it probably indicates in my opinion that somewhere along the way a genetic mutation occurred that was not so detrimental that it caused the mutant to be incapable of reproduction and survival, and the trait was passed on like blue eyes, big ears or male pattern baldness

cruise..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


So then explain to those of us who don't have it and are RH- esp. O- who are universal blood donors, seems quite a mystery like maybe genetic engineering took place at some point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


already did
Weyoun

User ID: 77989510
United States
12/04/2019 06:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The fossil record can be easily explained by intelligent design, which makes much more sense than random mutation.

Imagine 10,000 years from now, after a cataclysm has wiped out surface humans, hollow earth humans emerge and find a Tesla and Ford T in a rubble, and claim the Ford T randomly mutated to a Tesla over thousands of years. Preposterous right? Obviously intelligent design is the answer.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57893709
United States
12/04/2019 06:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Why was my comment about RH+ deleted? I may not be a scientist but I pose a strong question none of you want to answer! RH+ means Rhesus Monkey & 85% of Today's population is RH+ how is that not a sign of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


it means no such thing. All it means is a type of specific antigen is either present or not present on the surface of red blood cells, persons having inherited such antigens being designated Rh+ (Rh positive) and persons lacking them, a much smaller group, being designated Rh− . it comes from the fact that rhesus monkeys also have this antigen. So do many many other creatures.

it doesn't mean we evolved from monkeys any more than us having iron in red blood cells means we evolved from them. what it probably indicates in my opinion that somewhere along the way a genetic mutation occurred that was not so detrimental that it caused the mutant to be incapable of reproduction and survival, and the trait was passed on like blue eyes, big ears or male pattern baldness

cruise..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


So then explain to those of us who don't have it and are RH- esp. O- who are universal blood donors, seems quite a mystery like maybe genetic engineering took place at some point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


Nope, genetic aberration, like B type that took hold in the populace. RH negs aren't special beyond blood donations. They actually have a higher risk of everything from cancer to disease statistically speaking.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76493777

which btw is indicative of a genetic mutation that was not so horribly disabling that it prevented survival or reproduction. Rh- and Rh+ humans are the same species and can reproduce with each other successfully, the problem comes when if a Rh- baby's immune system sees the antigens of it's female Rh+ mother passing the placenta as an infection and attacks the blood not unlike if you give an rh- person rh+ blood. The difficulty in mixed reproduction of rh factor parents probably caused the rather large presence of the mutation in our species because rh- humans were more likely to reproduce successfully with other rh negative humans, resulting in a variant.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78222288
Australia
12/04/2019 06:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
Not a single genetic mutation has ever been found to be beneficial.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


Says who? The people who actually work in genetics disagree with you. It's not difficult to find examples of beneficial mutations. How do you explain new flu strains and antibiotic resistance?

The selective breeding or adaptation of species to changing environments into innumerable variants that Darwin postulated his theory on proves only that the genetic diversity is already there in the genetic code...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


It doesn't prove that at all. What test has been done to determine the genetic diversity was 'already there?' This is nothing but your assumption, which is contrary to the evidence. We can isolate specific mutations to determine their function. We can even move mutations between organisms in order to transfer a function. If what you're saying is true, there's no reason why transferring these mutations would transfer a function.

all of those variants were still the same species. There is not a single iota of evidence that one species can "evolve" into another
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


We have directly observed the process of speciation, whereby one inter-fertile population divides into two populations that are incapable of breeding with each other. At this point, the gene pool of each population will continue to diverge with time.

You probably don't know about ERV's. These are viral genes that were inserted into our DNA at random positions. We pass these ERV'S to our offspring, making them an excellent indicator of common ancestry.
Not only do different species share ERV's, but the closer two organisms are on the hypothesized evolutionary tree of life, the more ERV's they share. The distribution of ERV's also matches perfectly with the sequence in which different clades appear in the fossil record. Are these coincidences?

Knowing these facts, it's dishonest to say there isn't one iota of evidence that one species can evolve into another.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76493777
United States
12/04/2019 06:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The fossil record can be easily explained by intelligent design, which makes much more sense than random mutation.

Imagine 10,000 years from now, after a cataclysm has wiped out surface humans, hollow earth humans emerge and find a Tesla and Ford T in a rubble, and claim the Ford T randomly mutated to a Tesla over thousands of years. Preposterous right? Obviously intelligent design is the answer.
 Quoting: Weyoun


retards2
Weyoun

User ID: 77989510
United States
12/04/2019 06:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The fossil record can be easily explained by intelligent design, which makes much more sense than random mutation.

Imagine 10,000 years from now, after a cataclysm has wiped out surface humans, hollow earth humans emerge and find a Tesla and Ford T in a rubble, and claim the Ford T randomly mutated to a Tesla over thousands of years. Preposterous right? Obviously intelligent design is the answer.
 Quoting: Weyoun


retards2
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76493777


What an intellectually robust rebuttal.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78215486
United States
12/04/2019 07:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
When Darwin visited the Galapagos, he wrote in his journal:

The mind at first is hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe, but thus to destroy animals, both large and small … we must shake the entire framework of the globe.

Two decades later, in Origin of Species, he wrote:

We may feel certain … that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look forward with some confidence to a secure future of great length.

Velikovsky notes that the geological catastrophist school of Buckland and Cuvier, that dominated the early 19th century, was swept aside by Darwin and Lyell, the founders of evolutionary science.

The cosmic catastrophe cycle was either covered up, or replaced with a more palatable gradualist view.
goodsamaritan50

User ID: 78125162
Philippines
12/04/2019 07:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
My thoughts EXACTLY!
It's as if you read my mind.


i've looked at the timelines of all the previous hominid species and each one comes to an end. which is an indication of extinction. i could not find a single species "transitioning" into another species. i also could not find a species that transitioned into homo-sapiens. i could not find a species that transitioned into neanderthals. i could not find a species that transitioned into homo-habilus.

i see there is a 4 million year gap between homo-sapiens and australopithecines, but could not find any other species that connect humans to them. I also do not believe a species with 24 pairs of chromosome could "evolve" into a species with 23 pairs of chromosome.

i've asked in other subs, "what is the name of the species that "evolved' into homo-sapiens" and no one could give me an answer. many called me stupid or wrongly claimed we're related to the other hominid species, but no one has yet to provide a scientific name of the species that homo-sapiens evolved from, because it doesn't exist.

now, i believe micro-evolution does happen. an individual species will physically change depending on its environment or food source. for instance, the various types of finches. but i do not believe in macro-evolution. a finch will never transition or evolve into a seagull. in the same way, australopithecine, a primate could never transition or "evolve" into a hominid.

drawing a line between two separate species does not indicate that they are related. it's just a line drawn between two mutually exclusive species.

and to those who insist we are related to the other hominid species - WE ARE NOT!!!!

the chart showing the progression of hominid species is brainwashing at its finest. each previous species did not "evolve" into the next species.

all species are mutually exclusive.

the other hominid species have different scientific terms because they are all unique separate species that have no relations to homo-sapiens.

besides a very small percentage of caucasians who posses traces of neanderthal dna, homo-sapiens do not have any dna connecting them to any of the other hominid species that have been discovered.

neanderthals, denisovans, homo floriensis, and homo sapiens all existed at the same time and yet none are related and there is no evidence to indicate a progression of transitional species that eventually resulted in each mutually exclusive species.

and if you look at any timeline of hominids in the fossil record, you will see that the last species of australopithecines co-existed with homo-habilus.

so that means when the first upright walking hominid with 23 pairs of chromosomes "appeared" there were australopithecines with their 24 pairs of chromosome still swinging in trees.
5adancelmao
 Quoting: bartroberts

Healer, Geek, Red Pilled, Profamily, Prolife, Truther, Businessman, XRP Fan
Weyoun

User ID: 77989510
United States
12/04/2019 07:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
The new push is to claim Homosapiens evolved from Homosexuals.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76863067
United States
12/04/2019 07:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
...


it means no such thing. All it means is a type of specific antigen is either present or not present on the surface of red blood cells, persons having inherited such antigens being designated Rh+ (Rh positive) and persons lacking them, a much smaller group, being designated Rh− . it comes from the fact that rhesus monkeys also have this antigen. So do many many other creatures.

it doesn't mean we evolved from monkeys any more than us having iron in red blood cells means we evolved from them. what it probably indicates in my opinion that somewhere along the way a genetic mutation occurred that was not so detrimental that it caused the mutant to be incapable of reproduction and survival, and the trait was passed on like blue eyes, big ears or male pattern baldness

cruise..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


So then explain to those of us who don't have it and are RH- esp. O- who are universal blood donors, seems quite a mystery like maybe genetic engineering took place at some point
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76863067


Nope, genetic aberration, like B type that took hold in the populace. RH negs aren't special beyond blood donations. They actually have a higher risk of everything from cancer to disease statistically speaking.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76493777

which btw is indicative of a genetic mutation that was not so horribly disabling that it prevented survival or reproduction. Rh- and Rh+ humans are the same species and can reproduce with each other successfully, the problem comes when if a Rh- baby's immune system sees the antigens of it's female Rh+ mother passing the placenta as an infection and attacks the blood not unlike if you give an rh- person rh+ blood. The difficulty in mixed reproduction of rh factor parents probably caused the rather large presence of the mutation in our species because rh- humans were more likely to reproduce successfully with other rh negative humans, resulting in a variant.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57893709


So now I know you are talking out of your ass! Sorry to disrupt a beautiful thread but RH- CANNOT get HIV OR CANCER OR HERPES!! I have discussed this at length with my doctor to affirm
Rh beg blood is used to cure AIDS PATIENTS you should not make comments like they are facts, do your research before you make such claims!
Reebl
User ID: 78211251
United States
12/04/2019 07:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
You're describing the missing link OP, and yeah it's still missing.

There is no fossil evidence, anywhere, that shows a transition of one hominid species in to another.


There was Piltdown man, where they glued an orangutan jawbone on to a human skull, and tried to say it was the missing link. That was just a fraud though.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78215486


No matter how many missing links paleontologists find, Creationists just continue to demand more links. You'll never be satisfied.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78220115


My best friend, who passed last year, was a painter a sculptor and an artist extraordinaire.

He was not a Christian per say, but as an accomplished artist who, had a masters degree in Art history, and also taught. He saw something in the world around him that proved to him that there is a common brush stroke that can bee seen all around you if you look.

They are the brush strokes of a single artist. Just as you can immediately identify a 'Rembrandt' from an 'Escher'.

All you have to do is look.

Why do birds and bats have five fingers as wings. Even wales and dolphins have five fingers as fins. I hardly think we are descendants from a single distant relative.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 51386118
United Kingdom
12/04/2019 07:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
also - nature doesn't leave behind it's prototypes - if we evolved from monkeys, there would be no monkeys. there are monkeys. ergo we did not evolve from them. the human species were introduced to this planet by another species, from another planet.
MaybeTrollingUAgain

User ID: 75358302
Brazil
12/04/2019 07:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: evolution is a hoax.: the timelines of all previous species come to an end indicating extinction and none show a transition into another species.
i've looked at the timelines of all the previous hominid species and each one comes to an end. which is an indication of extinction. i could not find a single species "transitioning" into another species. i also could not find a species that transitioned into homo-sapiens. i could not find a species that transitioned into neanderthals. i could not find a species that transitioned into homo-habilus.

i see there is a 4 million year gap between homo-sapiens and australopithecines, but could not find any other species that connect humans to them. I also do not believe a species with 24 pairs of chromosome could "evolve" into a species with 23 pairs of chromosome.

i've asked in other subs, "what is the name of the species that "evolved' into homo-sapiens" and no one could give me an answer. many called me stupid or wrongly claimed we're related to the other hominid species, but no one has yet to provide a scientific name of the species that homo-sapiens evolved from, because it doesn't exist.

now, i believe micro-evolution does happen. an individual species will physically change depending on its environment or food source. for instance, the various types of finches. but i do not believe in macro-evolution. a finch will never transition or evolve into a seagull. in the same way, australopithecine, a primate could never transition or "evolve" into a hominid.

drawing a line between two separate species does not indicate that they are related. it's just a line drawn between two mutually exclusive species.

and to those who insist we are related to the other hominid species - WE ARE NOT!!!!

the chart showing the progression of hominid species is brainwashing at its finest. each previous species did not "evolve" into the next species.

all species are mutually exclusive.

the other hominid species have different scientific terms because they are all unique separate species that have no relations to homo-sapiens.

besides a very small percentage of caucasians who posses traces of neanderthal dna, homo-sapiens do not have any dna connecting them to any of the other hominid species that have been discovered.

neanderthals, denisovans, homo floriensis, and homo sapiens all existed at the same time and yet none are related and there is no evidence to indicate a progression of transitional species that eventually resulted in each mutually exclusive species.

and if you look at any timeline of hominids in the fossil record, you will see that the last species of australopithecines co-existed with homo-habilus.

so that means when the first upright walking hominid with 23 pairs of chromosomes "appeared" there were australopithecines with their 24 pairs of chromosome still swinging in trees.
5adancelmao
 Quoting: bartroberts


So we have two classical flawed arguments here: The crockoduck and personal incredulity.

The "just a line drawn" are not "just because". To make a link there must be evidence, that's science goes, evidence is always necessary. The fact that you don't know these evidences, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Your way of thinking is very similar to many people. You see evolution as a ladder, with humans on the top. It is not.
MaybeTrollingUAgain





GLP