If evolution isn't true and if viruses never evolve to different viruses... How come the only strand of HIV to be found in the history of Earth was found a mere 40 years ago? Before then, HIV didn't exist. It was nowhere to be seen. The only rational explanation is that a previous virus evolved into what we now know as HIV... Unless you have a different conclusion, Goodscience?

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 1:45am:

If evolution isn't true and if viruses never evolve to different viruses... How come the only strand of HIV to be found in the history of Earth was found a mere 40 years ago? Before then, HIV didn't exist. It was nowhere to be seen. The only rational explanation is that a previous virus evolved into what we now know as HIV... Unless you have a different conclusion, Goodscience?

Thank you for your decent question. I hope you are a decent person.

The belief and the definition of evolution would not allow you to use the word "evolve" in reference to any creature, based on the real evidence we have and how all of the evidence only shows what is real.

In order for virus to evolve it has to turn into some other creature.  Virus has always remained as the same creature of different strains.

It would be like finding a race of pygmies and telling everyone they are not human. This is, by the way, one of the foundational beliefs of Darwin.  He thought that pygmies and black people should be destroyed so as to not ruin the gene pool of the evolved white people.


Bacteria has always been the same creature of different strains.

Dogs have always been the same creature.

Horses have always been the same creature.

We have no evidence of any morphological changes or genome changes, in any species that could be called evolution.

Evolution is this idea that one creature becomes another over some immense time.  This use of the word "evolve" when referring to the ability of creatures to adapt in order to survive is the problem. 

These fools and victims of delusion, think that if a creature adapts to food or environment it has evolved.  No. It has adapted.  It will never break the boundaries of the systematic genetic structures of is foundational genetic make up.  This is what we find in evidence all over this planet.  It is nothing more than a genealogy of the original parent group of any species.

The classifications of creatures is all screwed up because of this religious belief in mystical causes and magical processes.
This makes it difficult to teach you what has really happened in biology. The "tree of life" is a religious belief, because without DNA there is no evidence to back up this religious belief. So these fools, will classify based on nonsense and get away with it because they are all in the same disgusting religion.

Evolution is a fraud.  Adaptation to survive is true and has huge mountains of evidence for it. It is all the evidence we have in the real world. There exists no evidence for any evolution.

The absolute truth is that creatures are somehow programmed to survive and adapt IF THEY CAN.  Some creatures can survive and adapt much better than others.
This is why we have fossils on 110 million year old crocodiles and 70 million year old opossums.  But they are still crocks and opossums.  They did not change.  No species has evolved into an entirely new species with totally new genetics and never have they crossed the genus or clad of any classification. They remain as the same genus and with the same DNA structures.

On the other hand thousands of birds have gone extinct just in my lifetime, because of their delicate reproductive issues with the poisons and harsh changes in the environment.

In the fossil record, as screwed up as it is, are no transitional forms.  In order to have transitional forms, you have to see them.  There are no trails of creatures with millions of fossils showing this transition and developing features. All we have are totally complete and finished creatures in the fossil record.

We have already shown that fossilization is far more common than these foolish nitwit believers want to think, because part of the mysteriousness and mystical crap is projected on the fact that they believe the evidence must have been destroyed along the way. 

There is no evidence of the evidence being destroyed and we have 88% of the living fossils of the non bird vertebrate.  That means the original fossils of creatures living now have been found and they are all unchanged in their basic morphology, so much so that they are immediately recognized.

Evolution <=> (is not equal to) Adaptation in order to survive.
Evolution is human emotional mental garbage. It is a belief that is not founded on any evidence.

I keep saying the same truth over and over.

In all the evidence we have on ALL creatures they only are shown to adapt as the same creature, sometimes their body shape is different like the Camel and the Llama but they are still able to breed after 2 million years of separation, by the screwed up assumptive and nearly worthless radiometric dating system.

I can easily find tons of data that shows creatures adapt in order to survive AS THE SAME CREATURES.  It is in the DNA, in the Fossils, In the speciation, in Virus, in bacteria, in all the living creatures we have today.  However, there is not one speck if evidence that any creature has broken the boundaries of genetics and became a new genus. There is no evidence of any drastic changes to any species.

There is no evidence of any marine life that became human over some immense time as it evolved from fish to reptiles, to birds, to mammals.  Since we have no evidence of any evolution of any creature in the entire world, I would say that this belief is nonsense.

All of this crap is a projection of mystical, magical fantasy.  Anyone who believes in this crap is weak, and has no credibility.

If you have no way to show evolution in any possible way after all this time that this garbage religion has been on the planet, then it is not science. They used to believe that fish could transform and walk out of the water. This was the original version of this nonsense religion. This religion is founded on the idea of mermaids and mystical creatures.

So, basically, this idea of virus "evolving" is mystical nonsense.

Quote:

In order for virus to evolve it has to turn into some other creature.  Virus has always remained as the same creature of different strains.

But there were 'no' strains of HIV prior to 40 years ago. Now there is HIV 2 which is a strand of HIV 1. But where did HIV 1 originate from? If HIV 1 originated from a different virus, then isn't that the same thing as saying a creature evolved from a different mammal?

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 12:06pm:

Quote: In order for virus to evolve it has to turn into some other creature.  Virus has always remained as the same creature of different strains. But there were 'no' strains of HIV prior to 40 years ago. Now there is HIV 2 which is a strand of HIV 1. But where did HIV 1 originate from? If HIV 1 originated from a different virus, then isn't that the same thing as saying a creature evolved from a different mammal?

I don't think you know how to read English?  What is your native language. Maybe I'll have it translated for you.

There is no evolution unless the creature changed into an etirely new morpholgy and genus.  That is the foundational belief in this nonsense.  If it is still virus then no evolution. Are you so brainwashed that you can't understand this?

There are only strains of virus that have adapted, and in some cases have mixed with other strains as the H1N1 has.

Evodelusionists are unethical will take foundational scientific terms and bastardize them to try and make their story seem real.  A "strain" is now called a "species", when it has already been called a strain for over a hundred years.  Virus is a species of microorganism and has always  been that.  It has never changed into a frog, in case you have not studied biology.

You need to study virus and microorganisms so you know what I am talking about.

Quote:

Virus is a species of microorganism and has always  been that.

Wrong. A specific virus is equated with being similar to a mammal. As an example, if I refer to a jaguar as a mammal, then I can refer to HIV as a virus. They all fall under that tag. However, a Jaguar cannot mate with mammals who aren't in the cat family. Just like HIV cannot combine with other viruses that aren't similar to the HIV virus. As an example, only specific strands of the flu virus can merge with other strands of the flu virus.

I asked a very specific question however. Asking where did HIV come from since it wasn't around past the last 40 years is on par with asking where did a jaguar derive from?
However, we have evidence that HIV wasn't around past 40 years ago. We have not found any fossilized rabbits in the precambrian strata either. So how did both, the modern rabbit and the HIV virus come onto earth without evolution?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

There is no evolution unless the creature changed into an etirely new morpholgy and genus.  That is the foundational belief in this nonsense.

You have a severe misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (colloquially called the Theory of Evolution) predicts. Claiming that one organism changing into an entirely different morphology is a "foundational belief" of evolution is false - and interestingly making such a statement violates your own terms of use for this forum against false or inaccurate statements!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Are you so brainwashed that you can't understand this?

We would have to BE brainwashed before we ever COULD understand such a thing, because it is not a true statement of what the Theory of Evolution says.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Evodelusionists are unethical will take foundational scientific terms and bastardize them to try and make their story seem real.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... unfortunately, in this case, the kettle isn't even black!


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Virus is a species of microorganism and has always  been that.

No, "virus" is NOT "a species of microorganism". Viruses are microorganisms that have their own taxonomy - orders, families, genera, and species - but they do not fit into the three-kingdom "tree of life", and are not all a single species.

This site is supposed to be a neutral forum for the discussion of evolution, but it's clearly no such thing. There may yet be valid challenges to the Theory of Evolution, but they need to be based on valid science, not on blatant misunderstanding such as what I've seen here.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:40pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:03pm: There is no evolution unless the creature changed into an etirely new morpholgy and genus.  That is the foundational belief in this nonsense. You have a severe misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (colloquially called the Theory of Evolution) predicts. Claiming that one organism changing into an entirely different morphology is a "foundational belief" of evolution is false - and interestingly making such a statement violates your own terms of use for this forum against false or inaccurate statements! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:03pm: Are you so brainwashed that you can't understand this? We would have to BE brainwashed before we ever COULD understand such a thing, because it is not a true statement of what the Theory of Evolution says. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:03pm: Evodelusionists are unethical will take foundational scientific terms and bastardize them to try and make their story seem real. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... unfortunately, in this case, the kettle isn't even black! GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 16th, 2010 at 3:03pm: Virus is a species of microorganism and has always  been that. No, "virus" is NOT "a species of microorganism". Viruses are microorganisms that have their own taxonomy - orders, families, genera, and species - but they do not fit into the three-kingdom "tree of life", and are not all a single species. This site is supposed to be a neutral forum for the discussion of evolution, but it's clearly no such thing. There may yet be valid challenges to the Theory of Evolution, but they need to be based on valid science, not on blatant misunderstanding such as what I've seen here.

This is the forum where you can get free of this nonsense.  Every thing you have posted is propaganda to protect the belief, has no evidence to back it,  but you are too unaware to know that. You think these people who teach this garbage are good and so you like them and want to protect this crap pseudo science.  You are dishonest by your beliefs.   What you believe is not true.  You need to get away from the indoctrinators to seek the truth. 

Don't you know that?

We have already established that the Religion of Evodelusion  had taken liberties with foundational scientific terms and bastardized the terms to help promote the religion.

They also make up fantasy slogans that have never passed any form of scientific inquiry.  Like "evolutionary pressure", and other slogans that you probably think are real.

You are just so brainwashed that you don't get it.  You are dishonest out of ignorance, because you don't have a clue what is going on.

The theory of evolutions primary belief is that all creatures evolved from other creatures. Since this has never happened ever in any evidence I would say it is fraud.

This idea that virus evolves into a new species is bovine garbage.  If it is still virus then no evolution has taken place.

The Evodelusionists believe that the ability of all creatures to adapt and make adjustments to the poisons and environment is proof that fish became human over some immense time by changing into reptiles, then birds and mammals.  You cannot use some thing that NEVER changes into a totally new creature and say that shows evolution.  It is just another deceptive nonsense method of brainwashing.

If you are too unaware of what you are studying, then you are not a good learner.  You are not good at protecting your mind from human emotional mental garbage. 

In order to learn you have to break away from delusional people who only what to perpetuate their religion through you.

This is a chance for you to get free.

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:34pm:

Quote: Virus is a species of microorganism and has always  been that. Wrong. A specific virus is equated with being similar to a mammal. As an example, if I refer to a jaguar as a mammal, then I can refer to HIV as a virus. They all fall under that tag. However, a Jaguar cannot mate with mammals who aren't in the cat family. Just like HIV cannot combine with other viruses that aren't similar to the HIV virus. As an example, only specific strands of the flu virus can merge with other strands of the flu virus. I asked a very specific question however. Asking where did HIV come from since it wasn't around past the last 40 years is on par with asking where did a jaguar derive from? However, we have evidence that HIV wasn't around past 40 years ago. We have not found any fossilized rabbits in the precambrian strata either. So how did both, the modern rabbit and the HIV virus come onto earth without evolution?

All you are doing is repeating the "slogans" of this religion.

These are not scientific statements backed with any evidence.

You actually believe that your weakness and need to belong to some Evodelusionary belief is a valid use of your life.  It isn't.  It is a wast of human life to pursue fantasy.  When you are old and on your death bed, this religion will have done nothign for you, but retard your intellectual developement, and keep you from knowing any truth about life.

I said nothing about virus being equal to a mammal. That is one of the evoldelusion hypothesis among many that have changed over time. At one time they believed that humans evolved from bacteria. 

Now they have new beliefs based on nothing, no evidence, as this crap continues in society.

Adaptation does not equal evolution.  Understand?

Now is a good time for you to learn, far away from the forced pressure to believe.  Just because you think that you must believe in this in order to be accepted is not a reason to accept it.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:08am:

This is the forum where you can get free of this nonsense.

Then it's not neutral, is it? It's clearly an ANTI-Evolution forum, and you are being quite dishonest in presenting it as anything else.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your drivel, as you have obviously taken up an anti-science position and are refusing to view evidence objectively.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:34am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:08am: This is the forum where you can get free of this nonsense. Then it's not neutral, is it? It's clearly an ANTI-Evolution forum, and you are being quite dishonest in presenting it as anything else. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your drivel, as you have obviously taken up an anti-science position and are refusing to view evidence objectively.

I am a scientist.  I do not want any religious nonsense being taught in schools.
The only science that should be taught needs to be free of delusional beliefs that have no evidence.
If this isn't neutral, then you are stupid.

Once you realize that this crap of evolution is based on nothing and has f**ked up biology and medicines, and any quality and fast progress in genetics, then you too would want only what is tested and true to be included in science.

You are the person who has beliefs, I don't. I only go where the evidence takes me and I never listen to anyones opinions as if they are true, until they are shown to be always true.

If you can find any fault in my evaluation of the evidence, then you need to work on that.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

I am a scientist.  I do not want any religious nonsense being taught in schools. The only science that should be taught needs to be free of delusional beliefs that have no evidence. If this isn't neutral, then you are stupid.

No, that's not neutral, but it IS appropriate criteria for what makes it into classrooms.

What makes this site NOT neutral is your prejudicial position that evolution is a delusional belief that has no evidence. A neutral site would be aimed at DECIDING whether or not evolution has evidence, and whether or not it is delusional... but a site that has already decided that evolution is delusional and has no evidence is very clearly NOT neutral.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

Once you realize that this crap of evolution is based on nothing and has f**ked up biology and medicines, and any quality and fast progress in genetics, then you too would want only what is tested and true to be included in science.

I'd love to hear in what ways you think evolution has f**ked up biology and medicines, or any progress in genetics.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

You are the person who has beliefs, I don't. I only go where the evidence takes me and I never listen to anyones opinions as if they are true, until they are shown to be always true.

That's an obviously false statement, as you have specifically said you discard evidence that supports evolution.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

If you can find any fault in my evaluation of the evidence, then you need to work on that.

I need to work on that? No, YOU should be the one making sure your evaluation of the evidence is objective.

The basic problem as I see it here is that you have, in your head, a definition for evolution and the Theory of Evolution that does not agree with the actual definitions. Your concept of evolution might actually be "bovine feculence"... but refuting your strawman does nothing to actually refute the real phenomenon or the real Theory of Evolution.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 12:05pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: I am a scientist.  I do not want any religious nonsense being taught in schools. The only science that should be taught needs to be free of delusional beliefs that have no evidence. If this isn't neutral, then you are stupid. No, that's not neutral, but it IS appropriate criteria for what makes it into classrooms. What makes this site NOT neutral is your prejudicial position that evolution is a delusional belief that has no evidence. A neutral site would be aimed at DECIDING whether or not evolution has evidence, and whether or not it is delusional... but a site that has already decided that evolution is delusional and has no evidence is very clearly NOT neutral. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: Once you realize that this crap of evolution is based on nothing and has f**ked up biology and medicines, and any quality and fast progress in genetics, then you too would want only what is tested and true to be included in science. I'd love to hear in what ways you think evolution has f**ked up biology and medicines, or any progress in genetics. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: You are the person who has beliefs, I don't. I only go where the evidence takes me and I never listen to anyones opinions as if they are true, until they are shown to be always true. That's an obviously false statement, as you have specifically said you discard evidence that supports evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: If you can find any fault in my evaluation of the evidence, then you need to work on that. I need to work on that? No, YOU should be the one making sure your evaluation of the evidence is objective. The basic problem as I see it here is that you have, in your head, a definition for evolution and the Theory of Evolution that does not agree with the actual definitions. Your concept of evolution might actually be "bovine feculence"... but refuting your strawman does nothing to actually refute the real phenomenon or the real Theory of Evolution.

It is you who doesn't understand your own religion of evoldelusion.  I give every person anonymity and an open keyboard to discuss this on here.  Now, here is the question that you need to answer (see below).  If you don't answer this here, you need to answer it to yourself at some point. When you do take the time to find the answer, you will see that all that exists is "opinions" and no evidence that would even suggest that evolution is nothing but a dumb ass belief that is forced on victims, such as yourself, and you will perpetuate this as long as you have ego attachments to this. As soon as you become a real scientist, then your science will be true.
As soon as you declare your allegiance to this religion in public, or make money with it, or write papers from your belief and publish them, get a degree in this crap, you screwed yourself for any form of objectivity. Beliefs on things that are only supported by human religious beliefs and opinions is not science. 

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and has no human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions in it?

Here is the accepted definition of evolution broken down for you.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1262730855

Quote:

soon as you declare your allegiance to this religion in public, or make money with it, or write papers from your belief and publish them, get a degree in this crap, you screwed yourself for any form of objectivity. Beliefs on things that are only supported by human religious beliefs and opinions is not science.

So what you're saying is that people who get a degree in evolutionary biology and study evolution on a daily basis are not scientists and they only have opinions and no evidence? Well sir, I dare say that you will refuse to accept any evidence presented to you and you dismiss any individual who may have an actual education in the matter as being biased scoundrels.
So in your opinion, you do believe that the only people that are qualified in this matter to discuss evolution with you are layman who haven't studied evolution. In essence, you sir are stacking the deck in your favor dismissing anyone with any knowledge of evolution as being biased and only "listening" to those who have no idea what they are talking about.

No wonder why you only have an elementary grasp of evolution... If even that.


Quote:

I give every person anonymity and an open keyboard to discuss this on here.

Until they present a good argument against your cause and then you ban them for being pro evolution.

Oh and by the way... Adaptation is the same thing as evolution. Adaptation means that the creature is adapting to their environment. Germs are a specific part of the environment. Adaptation is caused by 'mutations.' I know you think all mutations are bad, but they really aren't you see... Our DNA code is similar to binary code except instead of 0 and 1... It is made up of 0,1,2, and 3. AGTC in other words. Depending on their combination within the genetic code will give us various mutations. Adaptation to a specific environment over a very very long time will result in the accumulation of adaptive properties meaning... the more it adapts to the surroundings, the more it changes. The more it changes, the more it differs from what it previously looked like.

That is evidence of evolution.

If you do not accept this as evidence for evolution, dare I ask you how you think humans came to be on this God forsaken rock?

Quote:

A.That life started by "random" accident.  That there is no God and no designer and no intelligence behind all of this amazing universe. That by the big bang "random accident" where nothing existed, all of the universe came into being. Random events caused life.

Wrong. Abiogenesis states that life came from non-life and the big bang states that the universe came from a singular point. They are both separate theories and they are NOT in ANY WAY shape or form part of the evolutionary theory. For instance, you can prove Abiogenesis wrong tomorrow, but it would not prove evolution wrong. All evolution does, is that it explains the diversity of life not the start of life.


Quote:

B.That from this random start the entire universe was created and designed by no intelligence and that means that living creatures and plant life started by random accident as well.  From no life, life got it's start.

That's abiogenesis.. Not evolution.

I will go ahead and share with you a video series which is very educational. I know I am just one part of his testicles... But when I am part of his entire body, the truth of evolution comes out and the dismissal of creationism is foretold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

I have one more video to watch. Watch the whole thing, then you'll understand how evolution works and how adaptation is the same as evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh_5J5Gqoyw

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 11:25pm:

Quote: A.That life started by "random" accident.  That there is no God and no designer and no intelligence behind all of this amazing universe. That by the big bang "random accident" where nothing existed, all of the universe came into being. Random events caused life. Wrong. Abiogenesis states that life came from non-life and the big bang states that the universe came from a singular point. They are both separate theories and they are NOT in ANY WAY shape or form part of the evolutionary theory. For instance, you can prove Abiogenesis wrong tomorrow, but it would not prove evolution wrong. All evolution does, is that it explains the diversity of life not the start of life. [quote]B.That from this random start the entire universe was created and designed by no intelligence and that means that living creatures and plant life started by random accident as well.  From no life, life got it's start.

That's abiogenesis.. Not evolution.

I will go ahead and share with you a video series which is very educational. I know I am just one part of his testicles... But when I am part of his entire body, the truth of evolution comes out and the dismissal of creationism is foretold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY[/quote]

I have asked this guy thunderfoot to do a one on one with me in public and on video, so I can straighten out his nonsense.

This guy is so stupid that it is hard to think that people listen to him.

Don't put nonsense opinions in front of me again.  I do not want nonsense.  Understand.

You do not understand what evidence is.  You have been brainwashed and are weak willed if you think that arguing with creationists is the way to achieve enlightenment.

Arguing with creationist is a sign of insanity and weak arguments. Creationists are not scientists for the most part. They are projecting as well what they want to believe.

There is no scientific evidence for creation, nor for evolution, both are religious in nature. All religious nonsense needs to be removed from science. Take you nonsense beliefs and start a religion with it and indoctrinate your children far away from public schools.

I really suggest that you start reading the posts on here before you post again, so you can start to understand what real knowledge is.  If you want to be free, don't believe any of these dumb asses, and learn how to learn.

Quote:

Don't put nonsense opinions in front of me again.  I do not want nonsense.  Understand.

And yet, you keep your misinformed 'OPINIONS' of what evolution is when it is clearly not abiogenesis nor the big bang. Yet, you fail to realize that all it means is that it explains the diversity of life.


Quote:

Arguing with creationist is a sign of insanity and weak arguments. Creationists are not scientists for the most part. They are projecting as well what they want to believe.

Yet, you are arguing the point of the 'intelligent designer' am I wrong?


Quote:

You do not understand what evidence is.

I understand it perfectly well. The fact that good mutations exist and are plentiful is enough evidence for me. Why? Because time exists. If time exists, these mutations are able to accumulate. A creature with accumulated mutations will look entirely different from the original with 'none' of the mutations.


Quote:

I really suggest that you start reading the posts on here before you post again, so you can start to understand what real knowledge is.

You suggest that the only way to real knowledge is to read what you write, but you clearly have a misinformed idea of what evolution is. I know exactly what you have said. I have an extremely good reading level as well. You suggested that evolution is some cult that believes in things the theory does not say.. ever. For instance, the theory never states how life starts or how the big bang happened. You just assume it does to fit your agenda. All evolution does is that is explains the diversity of life.
If you wish to debate on the topic, feel free. But to argue with every single biologist who studies in the field daily is quite foolish. Your own vanity will be your downfall.

I will give you a slight education on what evolution does.

If you take a variety of organisms and 1% of the organisms have an immunity to a particular illness and that illness hits, do you agree that the overall organisms with the immunity is going to increase in percentage? A good example is the CCR5 delta 32 gene. This gene was found in less than 1% of Europeans. When the black plague hit, the number increased to 10%. Why? Because it protected against the black plague. Those who survived it were able to reproduce and had children who had the immunity. This dramatically effected the number of individuals who had the gene. This is one part of evolution in action. The gene is not an adaptation because in order for it to be an adaptation, the environment must be present prior to the development of the gene. This gene came into being by itself many many years prior to the existence of the black plague.

Here is another example of a good mutations. Can you explain this if this is not evolution in action?

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/11/13/mutation-leads-to-super-dense-bones/

This is a video from an 'actual' biologist about mutations. Enjoy.

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/162/8th-foundation-falsehood-of-creationism---mutations-and-genetic-information/

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 10:44pm:

Here is the accepted definition of evolution broken down for you. http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1262730855

Again, you are violating your own terms of use by posting false and inaccurate information. That may be the definition of evolution that YOU accept, but it is certainly not the definition that I accept, or that the scientific community in general accepts. Again, you can refute your own strawman definition until you are blue in the face, and it will have no effect whatsoever on the real Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. This is an observed natural phenomenon.

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (colloquially called the Theory of Evolution) is an explanation for how and why evolution occurs, as well as how and why it has occurred in the past. The Theory of Evolution allows us to make predictions as to the effects of evolution, both in the past and in the future. One such prediction is Common Descent. The Theory of Evolution describes a branching tree of development where each form of life diverges into separate branches, which continue to diverge over millions of generations.

One thing that the Theory of Evolution does NOT predict is an organism changing form - that is, jumping from one branch on the tree of life to another branch. Every descendant form is still the same "type" as the parent form. For example, poodles and great danes are still dogs, wolves and dogs are still canines, canines and felines are still carnivorous mammals, carnivorous and herbivore mammals are still vertebrate animals, etc.

The body of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution is immense, and includes comparative morphology, anthropology, and genetics. One of the strongest evidences of our common decent are Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), which serve as genetic markers, allowing us to independently construct a tree of life that completely matches the trees created through comparative morphology and other techniques.

Now, how else would you explain the ERV evidence, avoiding "human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions"? What other "plausibilities" can you come up with?

Evodelusionism is a religion, that is commonly called "The Theory of Evolution"  with the following precepts and dogma.

1/ Only the high priests of the cult are allowed to tell you how to think and what evodelusion is.  They present the dogma, and if you don't believe you are cast out from the "intellectual" status if you don't cave into all they teach you. If you think for yourself or question the faith and belief, you are made an example of and your career in biology is ruined.

2/ The peers are just as nasty.  If you don't cave into the belief, you will be put down as "stupid", "cretard", "unscienific", and a plain old "loser". The pressure to conform is extremely strong. Which is why there are so many weak people in this religion. You are not allowed to question the faith and belief in this Evodelusionism religion.

3/ In pop culture, the societies which are mostly people who have been forced to belief this crap, because "All the great minds of our time believe in evolution and think it is fact."  Most of the people in the culture have never really studied this crap, so they just believe for no reason other than the "scientists" tell them it is real.  The "scientists"
are spawn from 1 and 2 above.

4/ The basic dogma is this; 

A.That life started by "random" accident.  That there is no God and no designer and no intelligence behind all of this amazing universe. That by the big bang "random accident" where nothing existed, all of the universe came into being. Random events caused life.

(Clue: There is no random in this universe.  The number one law of science that all science "runs" on is cause and effect. Random would negate all causes and all effects and leave us in chaos.)

B.That from this random start the entire universe was created and designed by no intelligence and that means that living creatures and plant life started by random accident as well.  From no life, life got it's start.

C. That the first creatures were very small tiny one celled creatures that "evolved" and became larger creatures and formed things like muscles, nerves, spines, digestive ability,eyes, ears, taste, and motor skills to move about.  That the first creatures were marine life. (That all humans are really evolved from fish)

D. That the marine life eventually grew legs, lungs, feet and learned to walk on land for no apparent reason.  It was a "random" and totally chaotic, illogical event.   That these fish decided that they needed to walk on land.

E. That eventually, these walking fish, became reptiles, lizards and such.

F. That these reptiles eventually became mammals and birds.

G. That these reptiles split off and speciated into new geneses all over the world. That these reptiles, mammals and birds, decided that they can break all the laws of genetics and become all the many creatures we have today and those that came before and are extinct.

H. That humans came from a line of "rats" that eventually became lemurs, then apes and eventually humans were produced by this "evolutionary processes". That all monkeys are our close relatives.

I. They believe that when a creature has these little DNA changes to their cells that it proves evolution is real.  The idea is to project this fantasy on all the living creatures they can find. That tiny changes in the genome equal the ability, eventually to transform into a whole new genus and start a new lineage of species off that genus.

Since not one single premise has ever been tested or even shown to suggest evolution, by any scientific experiment, you would think that by now this religion would be gone from science. ;D ::) :P 

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 7:34am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 10:44pm: Here is the accepted definition of evolution broken down for you. http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1262730855 Again, you are violating your own terms of use by posting false and inaccurate information. That may be the definition of evolution that YOU accept, but it is certainly not the definition that I accept, or that the scientific community in general accepts. Again, you can refute your own strawman definition until you are blue in the face, and it will have no effect whatsoever on the real Theory of Evolution. Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. This is an observed natural phenomenon. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (colloquially called the Theory of Evolution) is an explanation for how and why evolution occurs, as well as how and why it has occurred in the past. The Theory of Evolution allows us to make predictions as to the effects of evolution, both in the past and in the future. One such prediction is Common Descent. The Theory of Evolution describes a branching tree of development where each form of life diverges into separate branches, which continue to diverge over millions of generations. One thing that the Theory of Evolution does NOT predict is an organism changing form - that is, jumping from one branch on the tree of life to another branch. Every descendant form is still the same "type" as the parent form. For example, poodles and great danes are still dogs, wolves and dogs are still canines, canines and felines are still carnivorous mammals, carnivorous and herbivore mammals are still vertebrate animals, etc. The body of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution is immense, and includes comparative morphology, anthropology, and genetics. One of the strongest evidences of our common decent are Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), which serve as genetic markers, allowing us to independently construct a tree of life that completely matches the trees created through comparative morphology and other techniques. Now, how else would you explain the ERV evidence, avoiding "human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions"? What other "plausibilities" can you come up with?

What you just stated is the precepts and slogans used to get you in the front door of this religion. 

I have studied this longer than most 40 year old kids have been on this planet.

It goes like this;

1/ They feed you the most benign version of this nonsense that they can use in the beginning of this indoctrination. With a nonsense totally watered down version of the faith and belief of this religion. They pretend to know what they are talking about. 
The watered down version is the foundation of what is partially true.  If you want to indoctrinate someone, feed them as much "obvious" truth as you can, then start feeding the deeper dogma and religious training as the indoctrinate loses all sense of reason and logic and falls for the slogans and dogma in a classroom induced trance or hypnosis from repeating nonsense over and over as if it was real.

2/ The students are not prepared to think for themselves on any of this, because they have been set up to believe by society, peers, even parents betray their children with this crap, because they have never really studied this.

There is no evidence that creatures do anything other than make minor adjustments to try to survive as the same creatures.   When they reach the limits of their genetics they go extinct.  There is no trail of fish becoming humans over some immense time, as is this ridiculous belief.

There is no such thing as any evidence showing the even the remote possibility of evolving from a "lower" life form or less complex life form.   

When you take a ride with strangers, and they blindfold you, don't you think you need to know where they are going? When they put the blindfold of repeated nonsense on your brain is just a sign of how gullible you are.

I never take rides with strangers, who attack my intelligence with nonsense.

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and has no human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions in it?

Please answer my question. It has the ability to wake up up from this brainwashing and take you to a point of objective reason that was taken from you.

Because there is no evidence of any creatures ever changing from fish to reptiles, to mammals, nor is there any sign of creatures adapting beyond the limits of their foundational genetic structures, this is religious nonsense and it needs to be removed from the educational system like all religious nonsense.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:30am:

I never take rides with strangers, who attack my intelligence with nonsense.

Instead you attack others' intelligence with nonsense, and expect them to "take the ride" with you.


GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:30am:

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and has no human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions in it?

How else would you explain the ERV evidence, avoiding "human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions"? What other "plausibilities" can you come up with?

I have a question for you goodscienceforyou. What would YOU accept as evidence for evolution?

Dabeer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 9:40am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 9:30am: I never take rides with strangers, who attack my intelligence with nonsense. Instead you attack others' intelligence with nonsense, and expect them to "take the ride" with you. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 18th, 2010 at 9:30am: Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and has no human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions in it? How else would you explain the ERV evidence, avoiding "human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions"? What other "plausibilities" can you come up with?

This is a required thread for all those who believe in mystical great primates, that have no evidence of existing. I will have a quiz after you come back.

[url]http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257966781[/url]

Goodscience: The guy too stupid to realize that he just gave us pro-evolution videos as homework for his anti-evolution class.

I've found something that defines Goodscienceforyou's modus operandi.

Here

I'm sorry to say, I've never read so much nonsense as here in the last two days.

CreationIst wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 4:51am:

I've found something that defines Goodscienceforyou's modus operandi. Here I'm sorry to say, I've never read so much nonsense as here in the last two days.

You are obviously a troll. You people never have any ethics.
You come on and pretend to be a creationist, because you are immoral, unetical and disgusting when you do this.

If you are a creationist, now you have to prove it.

Here is a video that reflects the jerks like you. It is full of absolute truths for you to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1qruCbFIA

ThunderF00tslefttesticle wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 12:42am:

Goodscience: The guy too stupid to realize that he just gave us pro-evolution videos as homework for his anti-evolution class.

If you are a true scientist and listened to only the facts in the videos, you will see lots of evidence for breeding and why it was possible.
Humans at that time had 48 Chromosomes according to the markers in the telomeres.
Chimps have 48 Chromosomes and 94.6% (according to evolutionists) the same DNA construction.
The ERV's are matched beyond any possibility of accidental genetic connection.  This is too close for a pair of creatures separated by millions of years, according to the first and only chimp fossil has been dated to.

You start thinking and stop believing in things.

Dabeer wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 12:05pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: I am a scientist.  I do not want any religious nonsense being taught in schools. The only science that should be taught needs to be free of delusional beliefs that have no evidence. If this isn't neutral, then you are stupid. No, that's not neutral, but it IS appropriate criteria for what makes it into classrooms. What makes this site NOT neutral is your prejudicial position that evolution is a delusional belief that has no evidence. A neutral site would be aimed at DECIDING whether or not evolution has evidence, and whether or not it is delusional... but a site that has already decided that evolution is delusional and has no evidence is very clearly NOT neutral. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: Once you realize that this crap of evolution is based on nothing and has f**ked up biology and medicines, and any quality and fast progress in genetics, then you too would want only what is tested and true to be included in science. I'd love to hear in what ways you think evolution has f**ked up biology and medicines, or any progress in genetics. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: You are the person who has beliefs, I don't. I only go where the evidence takes me and I never listen to anyones opinions as if they are true, until they are shown to be always true. That's an obviously false statement, as you have specifically said you discard evidence that supports evolution. GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:46am: If you can find any fault in my evaluation of the evidence, then you need to work on that. I need to work on that? No, YOU should be the one making sure your evaluation of the evidence is objective. The basic problem as I see it here is that you have, in your head, a definition for evolution and the Theory of Evolution that does not agree with the actual definitions. Your concept of evolution might actually be "bovine feculence"... but refuting your strawman does nothing to actually refute the real phenomenon or the real Theory of Evolution.

Here is your problem.  I never allow anything to be allowed as truth on anything that has no absolute clear and irrefutable evidence that is obvious.  One of the things I have learned is that confusing people with contrary evidence and getting away with it can only come from brainwashing.

When you come up against obvious study and observations of this "Theory of Evolution" you come up against me.

At some point what I teach will reach a small part of you because you still have the ability to understand the truth on some level.

When that happens, you are starting to make a breakthrough to getting free of having you mind owned by other people's combined beliefs, known as mythological religion. Do you like "belonging" or "being owned" by other people?

If you just go with what I teach and run with these concepts you will get free.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19^th, 2010 at 11:08pm:

When you come up against obvious study and observations of this "Theory of Evolution" you come up against me. At some point what I teach will reach a small part of you because you still have the ability to understand the truth on some level. When that happens, you are starting to make a breakthrough to getting free of having you mind owned by other people's combined beliefs, known as mythological religion. Do you like "belonging" or "being owned" by other people? If you just go with what I teach and run with these concepts you will get free.

Dumb as ever. I'll point it out once again...
This is basically what you say (ad nauseum)

Quote:

Everyone in the world lies to you and you are stupid to follow others. Now, follow me and you'll learn the truth...

Do you not see how utterly ridiculous this is?
I guess not.  :D
Barmy.

prolescum wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 4:13am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 19th, 2010 at 11:08pm: When you come up against obvious study and observations of this "Theory of Evolution" you come up against me. At some point what I teach will reach a small part of you because you still have the ability to understand the truth on some level. When that happens, you are starting to make a breakthrough to getting free of having you mind owned by other people's combined beliefs, known as mythological religion. Do you like "belonging" or "being owned" by other people? If you just go with what I teach and run with these concepts you will get free. Dumb as ever. I'll point it out once again... This is basically what you say (ad nauseum) Quote: Everyone in the world lies to you and you are stupid to follow others. Now, follow me and you'll learn the truth... Do you not see how utterly ridiculous this is? I guess not.  :D Barmy.

You weak humans are all the same.  What sort of zombie school did you go to? 

Religio mass produced, brainwashed idiot robotic dumb mystical crap beliefs in Evodelusion.