It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?

Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 5:02pm:

It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories?

Thanks for coming by!


You do not need theories that are perpetuated with no evidence. That is a logical fallacy. Whoever told you that is an Evodelusionist.

There is no absolute need for a theory to answer questions which have no answer.  It is human weakness to do that and it is the cause of such nonsense as fake religions and fake science. 

How do we know that the Theory of Evolution is a religion.  It follows absolutely no use of the scientific principles. 

In all the, pseudo science, papers filled with jargon. Once you understand the jargon, it is clear that it is not a scientific inquiry at all.  The premise that evolution is real is the foundation for the paper.  Yet there is not one use of any experiment that shows any irrefutable evidence for evolution. 

Evolution is this idea that simple creatures, magically evolved over some immense time and that for example fish got out of water and became mankind over some immense time.

The only way someone could believe that is

1/ They are normal weak minded and need to have beliefs. 

2/ They have been thoroughly indoctrinated with these slogans of Evodelusionism.

3/ They have been taught to not think in terms of objective reasonableness.

4/ They just want to get along in society and get a degree in science. 

5/ Others find this theory (religion) a good way to negate other religions and to carry on politically correct nonsense.

6/ Conformity (afraid of ridicule if they don't "believe), Ego and status along with low IQ's, which is very common with Evodelusionists.


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.  After 150 years of hard work by the religious leaders of this religion trying to pass it off as "science" they have failed to bring forth any natural objective evidence of any simple life form that ever evolved into any complex life form.  It is a religion, based solely on belief and nothing else.
The children of this faith are brainwashed as any indoctrination into any religion.  Only the brainwashing is done under the guise of "science".

I have yet to get any answers that would satisfy a sane objective observer that shows that this idea is even plausible from all the evidence we have.

The difference between these religions is one is disguised as science, the other is more honest and says it is about faith.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibility, be objective and obvious. It must be physical, and most of all have no opinions from the priests of this religion.  Opinions are not evidence nor are they fact. When you can prove this beyond all doubts as repeatable, absolute and uses the real scientific methods then show it to us all.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:30am:

Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm: It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories? You do not need theories. .... The Theory of Evolution is a religion. Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?

There is none.  You win.

Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 6:11pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm: It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories? You do not need theories. .... The Theory of Evolution is a religion. Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution? There is none.  You win.

I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung.

But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level.

We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives.

Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.

ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 4:33pm:

Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm: It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories? You do not need theories. .... The Theory of Evolution is a religion. Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution? There is none.  You win. I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung. But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level. We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives. Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.

There is no evidence for evolution.  I don't know if you  have ever researched this or not, but I have.  In 42 years of keeping tracks on all the evidence, there is none.

All we have is genetic lineages, extinction, and we have 88% of the non bird vertebrates, now living, as fossils and they have not changed.  There is no trail of any form of evolution on this planet.  It is a mythological religion.

There is no need for theories in science to go on for ever, without proof.  There is no need to believe in anything that has no evidence.

It may sound logical, but if you have no evidence all the belief means nothing.

Where is your absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have become complex life forms, That fish have evolved into humans?  Clue evidence does not contain beliefs nor opinions, just obvious, irrefutable and clear.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 7:00pm:

ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 4:33pm: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm: It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories? You do not need theories. .... The Theory of Evolution is a religion. Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution? There is none.  You win. I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung. But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level. We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives. Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one. There is no evidence for evolution.  I don't know if you  have ever researched this or not, but I have.  In 42 years of keeping tracks on all the evidence, there is none. All we have is genetic lineages, extinction, and we have 88% of the non bird vertebrates, now living, as fossils and they have not changed.  There is no trail of any form of evolution on this planet.  It is a mythological religion. There is no need for theories in science to go on for ever, without proof.  There is no need to believe in anything that has no evidence. It may sound logical, but if you have no evidence all the belief means nothing. Where is your absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have become complex life forms, That fish have evolved into humans?  Clue evidence does not contain beliefs nor opinions, just obvious, irrefutable and clear.

Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the existence of atoms? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the theory of universal gravitation? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of molecular orbitals? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of anything in science for that matter?

Science is not a matter of absolutes. The accepted theories are those that explain the evidence that is available and yet science by its nature open to alternatives and adaptations to established theories. Evolution explains the evidence, so it is accepted, only a foolish scientist would ever say there could never be any other explanation, but a more foolish scientist still would claim there could never be any explanation. In fact I would call any such person the antithesis of a scientist.

I honestly have no single "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" to offer. A perfect fossil record in two close but differing environments covering perhaps 100 millions years and containing a provable speciation event at it's base would be nice, but that is about the best I can muster from my imagination (imagination it must be, since no such fossil site could possibly exist).

I fail to see the significance of having a great proportion of living fauna as fossils as disproving evolution. Surely extant fauna have had less chance to deteriorate. Unless you're talking about Permian elephants.

I am also curious as to what you would define as a "genetic lineage". Evolution would consider us all part of the same "genetic lineage", so where in your opinion is the barrier between genetic lineages? Certainly it cannot be within the DNA since all creatures are based on a combination of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.

"Download full size image
Ancient Human Remains Discovered In Israel

Posted on: Wednesday, 29 December 2010, 06:05 CST

Israeli archaeologists reported on Tuesday that have found teeth of modern humans in a cave in central Israel dating back 400,000 years. That makes them twice as old as modern humans found in Africa, which is where they’ve been thought to have originated."

Now, watch how these morons will work to cover this up.

Watch how magically the dating will be changed, just like most all of these findings.

Humans did no come from Africa as is thought according to this finding. All the so called genetic DNA evidence has just been show to be concocted nonsense.

ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 1:29pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 7:00pm: ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 4:33pm: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm: It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories? You do not need theories. .... The Theory of Evolution is a religion. Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution? There is none.  You win. I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung. But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level. We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives. Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one. There is no evidence for evolution.  I don't know if you  have ever researched this or not, but I have.  In 42 years of keeping tracks on all the evidence, there is none. All we have is genetic lineages, extinction, and we have 88% of the non bird vertebrates, now living, as fossils and they have not changed.  There is no trail of any form of evolution on this planet.  It is a mythological religion. There is no need for theories in science to go on for ever, without proof.  There is no need to believe in anything that has no evidence. It may sound logical, but if you have no evidence all the belief means nothing. Where is your absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have become complex life forms, That fish have evolved into humans?  Clue evidence does not contain beliefs nor opinions, just obvious, irrefutable and clear. Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the existence of atoms? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the theory of universal gravitation? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of molecular orbitals? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of anything in science for that matter? Science is not a matter of absolutes. The accepted theories are those that explain the evidence that is available and yet science by its nature open to alternatives and adaptations to established theories. Evolution explains the evidence, so it is accepted, only a foolish scientist would ever say there could never be any other explanation, but a more foolish scientist still would claim there could never be any explanation. In fact I would call any such person the antithesis of a scientist. I honestly have no single "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" to offer. A perfect fossil record in two close but differing environments covering perhaps 100 millions years and containing a provable speciation event at it's base would be nice, but that is about the best I can muster from my imagination (imagination it must be, since no such fossil site could possibly exist). I fail to see the significance of having a great proportion of living fauna as fossils as disproving evolution. Surely extant fauna have had less chance to deteriorate. Unless you're talking about Permian elephants. I am also curious as to what you would define as a "genetic lineage". Evolution would consider us all part of the same "genetic lineage", so where in your opinion is the barrier between genetic lineages? Certainly it cannot be within the DNA since all creatures are based on a combination of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.

Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science.

There is evidence for other parts of science.  You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses.  You  can't do that with evolution.

If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory.

This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures.  Faith and religious ideas are not science.

DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.

There is no magical processes nor mystical causes.  This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds.  Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.

I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't.  They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science. 

Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence.  Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence. 
Understand?  You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.

DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.  They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are.  If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.

What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.

You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form.  That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.

The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense.  It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from.  There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T.  The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.

If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.

The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.

According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true.  The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.

It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.

"The obvious isn't obvious until it is obvious." GoodScienceForYou

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 11:02am:

Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science.

I have a chemistry degree, so I already know how science works thank you very much. I don't really appreciate you establishing yourself as some sort of authority figure, but comment on your condescending opening aside… let's move on.


Quote:

There is evidence for other parts of science.  You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses.  You  can't do that with evolution.

As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome.


Quote:

If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory.

I would say that natural selection, because of its repeated tests fits that description very well. Again, I accept that we are talking about small changes over short time periods, but still the principle has withstood rigorous testing.


Quote:

This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures.  Faith and religious ideas are not science.

The primary mechanism has been tested though (again I hasten to add in short term experiments).


Quote:

DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.

Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.


Quote:

There is no magical processes nor mystical causes.  This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds.  Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.

As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?


Quote:

I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't.  They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science.

What do you mean by "religious slogans"?


Quote:

Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence.  Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence.  Understand?  You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.

At the very base of things, yes, a fossil is meaningless as evidence. But inference based on the skeletons of dead creatures is surely worthwhile, even if never conclusive.


Quote:

DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.  They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are.  If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.

Mutations are errors in duplication. I can't see the validity of your point that mutations can only exist if you can show the cause. If a change has occurred then it has occurred, why is it necessary to prove the cause? We also return to my original question of where the boundary between genetic lineages is; as far as I know there is no such boundary.


Quote:

What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.

An interesting hypothesis, but it requires some foundation. For example what would be the founding families? And when in the fossil record do we see the parents of these genetic lineages?


Quote:

You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form.  That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.

You're swearing again. And also using the word magic, which is inappropriate when describing evolution as I understand it. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have some personal issue with the theory.


Quote:

The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense.  It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from.  There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T.  The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.

More swearing. As a chemist, I'm betting that the "cause" is chemical. Meaning that the expression of those groups of bases probably has a structural relevance to the amino acids they "code" for. Or are you going deeper than the chemistry of life?


Quote:

If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.

That's one way of looking at it I guess.


Quote:

The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.

And again with the cuss words. I still see evolution as a valid, non-magical explanation for the abundance of evidence.


Quote:

According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true.  The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.

I take it "evotard" is play on words to include retard. So now you've gone from cuss words to insults. Stay away from that, it only weakens your stance.


Quote:

It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.

Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative.

Quote:
It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.


"Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative."


First of all this idea that one needs to know is a human weakness and is the cause of all sorts of religious nonsense.

Second, I like to use very succinct words to express what something is.  "nonsense", "Evotard", are all very descriptive and represent my dislike of religious nonsense used in science.

There is no need for a theory, unless you  have some reason to create a theory, some natural observation that would give rise to this theory.  Since there is absolutely no reason in the natural world to even consider that "fish became human" by some magical nonsense, then where does this crap come from?
It comes from a religion:

It started from a religious idea that was congealed back about 2600 years ago.  Just like all religious ideas, people are looking to prove them and only them and are not able to just look at what is obvious.  That is a human flaw. Out of fear that comes from ignorance they make up crap to fill in the gaps, console themselves, and use that crap until it is shown to be wrong.

You cannot falsify a religion and so this Evodelusionism continues.

What we actually know in real evidence is that creatures appear, they remain basically the same for the entire time they exist. They go extinct or are still here on earth.
There are only genetic lineages and they don't seem to improve at all.

There is no evidence of any creature breaking the boundary of their genetic lineage and evolving.

If you have any absolutely irrefutable evidence that shows otherwise, where is it?

When each and every premise is easily dismissed, by several other much more logical "reasons", then why would you only accept the faith based logic and only see that?

I have studied this, seen all the iterations, adjustments, fixing the dogma, changing if foundational scientific terms,  sidestepping, sideways logic, to keep this faith going for over 42 years that I have studied it. It has a long history of faith holding this crap belief (of simple life becoming complex) together, but no evidence that is conclusive, not ever.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1267149414

Start Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPPafzd4wGI

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

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

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:

As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome.

Natural Selection has nothing to do with evolution.  Breeding and not breeding, killing off creatures etc is not evolution.  It shows what happens with extinction, and with  breeding.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 11:02am: Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science. ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: I have a chemistry degree, so I already know how science works thank you very much. I don't really appreciate you establishing yourself as some sort of authority figure, but comment on your condescending opening aside… let's move on. Quote: There is evidence for other parts of science.  You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses.  You  can't do that with evolution. As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome. [quote]If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory. I would say that natural selection, because of its repeated tests fits that description very well. Again, I accept that we are talking about small changes over short time periods, but still the principle has withstood rigorous testing. [quote]This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures.  Faith and religious ideas are not science. The primary mechanism has been tested though (again I hasten to add in short term experiments). [quote]DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.

Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.


Quote:

There is no magical processes nor mystical causes.  This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds.  Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.

As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?


Quote:

I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't.  They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science.

What do you mean by "religious slogans"?


Quote:

Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence.  Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence.  Understand?  You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.

At the very base of things, yes, a fossil is meaningless as evidence. But inference based on the skeletons of dead creatures is surely worthwhile, even if never conclusive.


Quote:

DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.  They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are.  If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.

Mutations are errors in duplication. I can't see the validity of your point that mutations can only exist if you can show the cause. If a change has occurred then it has occurred, why is it necessary to prove the cause? We also return to my original question of where the boundary between genetic lineages is; as far as I know there is no such boundary.


Quote:

What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.

An interesting hypothesis, but it requires some foundation. For example what would be the founding families? And when in the fossil record do we see the parents of these genetic lineages?


Quote:

You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form.  That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.

You're swearing again. And also using the word magic, which is inappropriate when describing evolution as I understand it. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have some personal issue with the theory.


Quote:

The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense.  It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from.  There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T.  The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.

More swearing. As a chemist, I'm betting that the "cause" is chemical. Meaning that the expression of those groups of bases probably has a structural relevance to the amino acids they "code" for. Or are you going deeper than the chemistry of life?


Quote:

If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.

That's one way of looking at it I guess.


Quote:

The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.

And again with the cuss words. I still see evolution as a valid, non-magical explanation for the abundance of evidence.


Quote:

According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true.  The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.

I take it "evotard" is play on words to include retard. So now you've gone from cuss words to insults. Stay away from that, it only weakens your stance.


Quote:

It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.

Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative.
[/quote]
[/quote]


When you can't even use
Code:

[quote][/quote]

properly, how can I even take you seriously?

I was interrupted by work.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:

Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.

Comparative anatomy is a religious idea.  It allows a lot of room for "feelings", "brainwashing", "belief", and other human failings that can never be tested.

OPINIONS are never evidence.

I have looked at all the fossils that I can stand to look at in 42 years. And there is no trail of evolution anywhere.

When I was young I was introduced to this idea that these fuddy duddys were out there telling me what this fossil was and what that fossil was, but they had no physical evidence to back up their beliefs.  It was clear that they were purposely imposing belief on the fossils.

Without the belief, there is no evidence "for" evolution  in fossils.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:

As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?

Since there is no physical evidence for evolution, they use magical concepts to project on evidence. 

There is no such thing as "random" in real science. There is only cause and result, the first law of science, what all of science works on.

When mystical causes are invoked, like "random mutations" and crap like that we know it is a religion.  There is only cause an result. The result is all they know that there are differences in the DNA, the causes are unknown, so they us magical terms to teach this crap with.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:

What do you mean by "religious slogans"?

Religious slogans are like "evolutionary pressure",  "random mutations", presenting  "paleontology" a pseudo science based on opinions and nothing else.  "evolutionary morphology" and most of the degrees in this are fake science degrees.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary pressure". Anything that requires a creature to change to survive destroys it. That is why we are seeing only extinction with this environmental changes.

"Paleontology" is an art form, not science.  People's interpretation of anything is not science. Science means that everybody everywhere "sees" the same thing with no conjecture based on what they hope it is.

"evolutionary morphology" is nonsense made up to sound scientific. It is the religious idea that these "seers" can depict the past from fossils.   Primitave cultures can tell the future from reading "bones" too.

There is no use of the scientific method used in those slogans.  No one has ever performed experiments to prove those are even plausible ideas.

What they are is the student already believes from the pre-brainwashing on TV, from friends, teachers, parents and all the crap beliefs around them.
Then they take classes and never question these slogans. They are accepted with no reason for accepting them other than the "nice" teacher tells you that your grade depends on your belief in this garbage.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:

Mutations are errors in duplication. I can't see the validity of your point that mutations can only exist if you can show the cause. If a change has occurred then it has occurred, why is it necessary to prove the cause? We also return to my original question of where the boundary between genetic lineages is; as far as I know there is no such boundary.

There are no "errors in duplication". This is one of those religious slogans that has no merit.  There is no way to know where these "differences" come from, so people make up ideas of "errors" to fit the religious beliefs.


It is obvious, when you  just look at the evidence. Creatures are only programmed to survive, not to evolve.  They are only programmed to survive as the same creature.

The Galapagos finches are perfect examples. The chicken teeth DNA perfect example. The Italian Wall Lizard, and so on.  They only make DNA adjustments to preserve the same creature.  When the ability to adapt as the same creature is met, extinction is the result.  If the adaptation needed exceeds what is in the genetic structures, they die.

There is an obvious structure that requires exact precision to live. When that structure can not live under the conditions it dies.  If that foundational structure is incorrect it dies from "genetic diseases".  Like no bird lives under water, no fish lives on land. No mammal can live below freezing without shelter. No creature can live without food.

If one base pair being "wrong" can cause sickle cell anemia, think what 100 base pair scrambled by "random" can do.  It destroys the creature.

There is no such thing as random changes to DNA from parent to offspring. There is only genetic information that holds the genetic structures to function within these boundaries.

More tomorrow.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 7:48pm:

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence. Comparative anatomy is a religious idea.  It allows a lot of room for "feelings", "brainwashing", "belief", and other human failings that can never be tested. OPINIONS are never evidence. I have looked at all the fossils that I can stand to look at in 42 years. And there is no trail of evolution anywhere. When I was young I was introduced to this idea that these fuddy duddys were out there telling me what this fossil was and what that fossil was, but they had no physical evidence to back up their beliefs.  It was clear that they were purposely imposing belief on the fossils. Without the belief, there is no evidence "for" evolution  in fossils.

Nice how you completely ignored what comparative anatomy actually shows.

Why should all mammals have the exact same bones, but just differently proportioned? Why should the laryngeal nerve take the route it does?

These are evidences, not proof, but they are compelling when looked at together. Evolution explains them all.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 8:07pm:

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: What do you mean by "religious slogans"? Religious slogans are like "evolutionary pressure",  "random mutations"

Mutations happen, if you want to ignore that you can, but it doesn't change the facts.

By "evolutionary pressure" I assume you mean "environmental selective pressure" which again is, unfortunately for you, an undisputed fact. It's actually more than fact - it's common sense. Individuals within populations have a variable chance of survival. Those that do survive will pass on their genes. It's obvious.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:48pm: ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence. Comparative anatomy is a religious idea.  It allows a lot of room for "feelings", "brainwashing", "belief", and other human failings that can never be tested. OPINIONS are never evidence. When all the evidence only points to de-evolution, gene losses and reduced fitness in all multi-cellular creatures, then we know for absolute that evolution is fraud. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence of de-evolution and degradation of the genomes of all creatures. I have looked at all the fossils that I can stand to look at in 42 years. And there is no trail of evolution anywhere. There is only genetic lineages and gene losses, gene degrading, reduced cell development with improper coding, atavisms, and complete utter destruction of traits that were used for survival. When I was young I was introduced to this idea that these fuddy duddys were out there telling me what this fossil was and what that fossil was, but they had no physical evidence to back up their beliefs.  It was clear that they were purposely imposing belief on the fossils. DNA is the needed physical evidence and it only shows de-evolution or continual degradation of genomes. Without the belief, there is no evidence "for" evolution  in fossils. Nice how you completely ignored what comparative anatomy actually shows. Why should all mammals have the exact same bones, but just differently proportioned? Why should the laryngeal nerve take the route it does? These are evidences, not proof, but they are compelling when looked at together. Evolution explains them all.

Comparative Anatomy is based on opinion, not on evidence. When you understand the nature of humans to believe in things they don't understand, and for some of the dumbest reasons, you will be on your way to freedom.

Comparative Anatomy is a religious idea. Any one who is considered an expert and destroys or mutilates any evidence and forces belief on it, is not a scientist.

The only thing you have shown me so far is that you want to believe in this.  You have not produced any real objective reasoning.

"the laryngeal nerve take the route it does?" This shows a degradation away from the original design.  It is definitely showing de-evolution.  It shows less fitness.  Not the magical idea of mystical improvements over time.

ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 4:33pm:

Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am: Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm: It seems there are only two theories: 1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact) 2. The "poof" Theory of religion Any other theories? You do not need theories. .... The Theory of Evolution is a religion. Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution? There is none.  You win. I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung. But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level. We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives. Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.

I have sat on a jury and convicted the criminal.  There is this thing called evidence and when all the evidence LINES up perfectly, then you can make judgments.

I have taken a look at all the evidence we have and I have made judgments that actually fit the evidence.

Evotards do not look at any evidence with any objectivity. They are brainwashed into a belief system before any evidence is actually presented, and then the only evidence they get is polluted by the believers who teach this garbage.

Evotard are not able to see what is right in front of their noses.  And Evotard would walk along and see a turd on the ground and convince themselves that was evidence for evolution.  I am not kidding that is how messed up these people are.

There is no need for any alternative explanation that contains no evidence as this crap does. Humans can take anything and manipulate it into any friggin religious belief and Evodelusionism is not science but is a mythological religion.

Religious answers are not science. They are based on faith and only faith. The belief is first then the conclusion.  Pseudo Scientists read in things that are not contained in evidence.

Evolution has overwhelming evidence against this magical nonsense that simple life has "evolved" in to complex life. This is because there is absolutely no evidence for that.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 8:07pm: ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: What do you mean by "religious slogans"? Religious slogans are like "evolutionary pressure",  "random mutations" Mutations happen, if you want to ignore that you can, but it doesn't change the facts. By "evolutionary pressure" I assume you mean "environmental selective pressure" which again is, unfortunately for you, an undisputed fact. It's actually more than fact - it's common sense. Individuals within populations have a variable chance of survival. Those that do survive will pass on their genes. It's obvious.

Prove absolutely that "mutation happens".   I have never seen any form of evidence for this idea.  All I hear are beliefs that what they "see" is mutation. First you have to show us all that this "mutation" is actually different than any genetic coding in the ancestors.  Otherwise it is simply a reshuffling of existing genetic coding.

This is for absolute sure: These idiots have no idea the cause of any differences in any DNA coding.  They project nonsense magical beliefs in ideas that violate the first laws of science.  Any "science" that violates any laws of science is a "pseudo science" and should not be taught in schools as science.

If you want to teach this garbage to your children don't do it in public schools where NO religious nonsense should be allowed.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 16^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:48pm: ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm: Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence. Comparative anatomy is a religious idea.  It allows a lot of room for "feelings", "brainwashing", "belief", and other human failings that can never be tested. OPINIONS are never evidence. I have looked at all the fossils that I can stand to look at in 42 years. And there is no trail of evolution anywhere. When I was young I was introduced to this idea that these fuddy duddys were out there telling me what this fossil was and what that fossil was, but they had no physical evidence to back up their beliefs.  It was clear that they were purposely imposing belief on the fossils. Without the belief, there is no evidence "for" evolution  in fossils. Nice how you completely ignored what comparative anatomy actually shows. Why should all mammals have the exact same bones, but just differently proportioned? Why should the laryngeal nerve take the route it does? These are evidences, not proof, but they are compelling when looked at together. Evolution explains them all.

Take a look at the horse "fossils" and tell me what that shows you? Then I will tell you what it really shows and EXACTLY why.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 12:53am:

Prove absolutely that "mutation happens".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8849244

Maybe you'll disagree, but understanding mutations is part of modern medicine. If they don't exist, then why does "assuming" they exist (cause it's all theory of course) yield such positive results?

You said before that I "want to believe in this". That is wrong. I accept the evidence.


Quote:

First you have to show us all that this "mutation" is actually different than any genetic coding in the ancestors.  Otherwise it is simply a reshuffling of existing genetic coding.

So what does that make a single point mutation? What does that make a gene duplication? Or a single point insertion/deletion? "Reshuffling" or more generally speaking 'alteration" of the genetic code is exactly what mutation is?

So what is your problem with this idea of change in the genetic code? If "reshuffling" is ok why not an accumulation of changes over deep time to generate great change?

(This is just a guess, but I'm betting you don't accept the ancient age of the Earth).

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 6:07pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 12:53am: Prove absolutely that "mutation happens". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8849244 Maybe you'll disagree, but understanding mutations is part of modern medicine. If they don't exist, then why does "assuming" they exist (cause it's all theory of course) yield such positive results? You said before that I "want to believe in this". That is wrong. I accept the evidence. Quote: First you have to show us all that this "mutation" is actually different than any genetic coding in the ancestors.  Otherwise it is simply a reshuffling of existing genetic coding. So what does that make a single point mutation? What does that make a gene duplication? Or a single point insertion/deletion? "Reshuffling" or more generally speaking 'alteration" of the genetic code is exactly what mutation is? So what is your problem with this idea of change in the genetic code? If "reshuffling" is ok why not an accumulation of changes over deep time to generate great change? (This is just a guess, but I'm betting you don't accept the ancient age of the Earth).

Bacteria is a totally different species than any other form of life.  It has complex programming to survive NO MATTER WHAT.  Its ability to adapt and to survive is clear and it does adapt to many forms of attacks from its environment.
If bacteria were to not survive neither would we.  It is obviously genetically engineered to survive so that we and all life on earth as we know it will be able to live.

You cannot live without bacteria. It is a primary ingredient to life.  The cause of these "mutations" is unknown. They cannot see the programming that makes bacteria so powerful at adapting.

Bacteria has never evolved or become more complex.  The ancient cultures of bacteria were actually able to withstand much higher temperatures.  There are still stains of them on this planet, in case we need them.

My conclusions are based on observation study and having no beliefs.  If you are objective and not succumbing to others opinions you  too can see what is going on.


In order to make a statement of fact about something that you know nothing about, you have to see the cause 100%.

There is not one single "scientist" who knows the cause of the DIFFERENCES in DNA.  They go on belief and state that these are magical mutations with random causes. They don't have the slightest clue where the programming comes from that drives the genome to survive.  And the only thing shown in the genome is this drive to survive.

We can see up to 30,000 differences in DNA just from smoking. This shows that the human genome is trying to survive based on information contained in the coding. 

In all events that have hit humanity there is nothing but a continual degradation of the human genome.  The net result is a much weaker species with many genetic illnesses. We have many imbalances.

When an event such as the plague hits or the famous swine flu, and only a group survives with an exceptionally powerful immune system that is out of balance from the rest of humanity you get people with genetic illnesses such as auto immune disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, all caused by an overly agressive immune system that eats up joints, body parts, bones, islets in the pancreas that create insulin.

They don't seem prone to cancer though. That is a different genetic lineage.

In every case of "survival of the fittest" the genome gets farther out of balance and has more genetic illnesses.  The environment doesn't make stronger, it allows imbalances to rule. 

When we look at the human genome we can see thousands of genetic illnesses have been identified. All of them are from "evolution" which is really a reduction in information and causes such things as pseudo genes showing atrophy of parts of the genome that was there and used to survive under different environmental conditions.

If those original conditions were to show up then those who still have that gene may survive.  It is best to balance the gene pool better than to continue to isolate and hate different races and cultures. 

In the Nordic countries type 1 diabetes is rampant. It is an auto immune disease in which a virus comes along and the bodies immune system is on overdrive and destroys the virus but also destroys the pancreas ability to produce insulin.

So if you are saying that "mutation" shows any improvement from the original genetic engineering, you are completely wrong.  All events that evolution believes are the cause of "improvement" are the cause of imbalances.

This is shown very well in DNA. Go get a copy of the human genome chart showing all the diseases they have identified so far and they are just beginning.

We also have new auto immune diseases that were never heard of before. 

Single point "mutations" are always detrimental if they are caused by environmental poisons.   As soon as the genetic structure that was working fine to produce cells is disrupted in anyway we get genetic illnesses.  Many of the genetic illnesses that are easy to spot are now being used to abort babies.  The only "cure" we have is killing off our babies.

It is only when we can restore the correct genetic engineering that we can cure all these "genetic diseases".

We know that there is a correct genetic engineering because we can see it in people who do not have a particular genetic disease.  But in all cases every person has genetic diseases.

The word "disease" means that the body functions are not running smooth and are not at "ease".  Imbalances in the body are the cause of all genetic illnesses.

ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 6:07pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 12:53am: Prove absolutely that "mutation happens". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8849244 Maybe you'll disagree, but understanding mutations is part of modern medicine. If they don't exist, then why does "assuming" they exist (cause it's all theory of course) yield such positive results? You said before that I "want to believe in this". That is wrong. I accept the evidence. Quote: First you have to show us all that this "mutation" is actually different than any genetic coding in the ancestors.  Otherwise it is simply a reshuffling of existing genetic coding. So what does that make a single point mutation? What does that make a gene duplication? Or a single point insertion/deletion? "Reshuffling" or more generally speaking 'alteration" of the genetic code is exactly what mutation is? So what is your problem with this idea of change in the genetic code? If "reshuffling" is ok why not an accumulation of changes over deep time to generate great change? (This is just a guess, but I'm betting you don't accept the ancient age of the Earth).

There is nothing wrong with accepting evidence, just NEVER accept another person's conclusion, no matter who they are, until you understand ALL of the factors around this evidence.

When someone limits the "ways" of observing evidence and uses terms that are not scientific, such as the "magical" word "random", which is used every time humans have no clue what causes are going on.

"We see random mutations".  "I am a degreed scientist PHD in genetics and I tell you  that we see "random mutations".

Anytime a scientist uses the term "random" they are clueless as to the causes. It is a cover up for ignorance.

There is no evidence for exactly how old the earth is.  I have looked at all the ideas of science and of religion and there is no way at the present time to determine with any accuracy how old the universe is nor how old the earth is.

But in today's time measuring is is far older than 6000 years old.  But we have no idea the time measure from millions of years ago. We have no idea the speed at which atoms, matter, light or anything operated at.  The universe is accelerating, we can see this in PHYSICAL evidence.  It is also expanding and we can see that in PHYSICAL evidence.

This would indicate that time is not a constant that it changes as the universe changes.  There is NOTHING that I have ever seen in the universe in all my studies on this, as constant, except change.

I know from fact that there is an eternal now that is the space of observation, but we as humans cannot remain there, until we are totally free of any controls emotions (beliefs) have over the mind.

I have avoided beliefs for most of my life, because my father taught me to never believe anyone, even him, on anything until you have real evidence that is clear.  It is my mantra that humans are liars by nature, not by intent. That we lye to ourselves all the time for emotional reasons.  I am not the first person on earth to understand this "obvious" truth.

It is only when you can "start" to find the objective awareness you were born with that you can get free of delusions.  This evolution delusion is an easy one, because there is no evidence to support this idea.

From a perspective of NOW and being completely objective, is the only condition for a scientist to work hard to place their minds.  Any belief is destructive to science and intelligence.  One should never form beliefs or accept any ideology over another even if one calls itself "science" and the other calls itself "religion".  Human "group think" has always been full of ignorance. Just ask the Jews of Germany in the 30's and 40's. That is a great example of what "group think" can do.

This is the Neutral Evolution Forum, where people are free to think for themselves and not from the HEMG pack mentality. Few people have the ability to get out of beliefs and seek objective truth. 

In genetics we observe differences to DNA and differences in offspring.  We have no idea the cause.  We can see a continual overall degradation of the human genome, because we spent 3 billion dollars on the "Human Genome Project".

The "scientists" promised that when they spend this money they would be able to cure diseases.  In ten years they are still in the dark ,but they continue to prove my premise and theory of continual weakening of the human genome by the exact same reasons that Evodelusionists think the genome is gaining in information or "evolving" or improving by "natural" selection.

Go get a copy of this chart from them.  It is free paid for by the US government and taxpayers dollars.

I have dedicated a major part of my, now short, life in deep study of this "evolution" phenomenon in humans.   I have "attacked" people to back up their beliefs with evidence. Thousands of them.  I put up videos to get people to have disdainfulness for me and attack my character even.

I did this to get the most information as fast as possible on all the latest "findings" in the last 10 years, because they do not show this in the classroom.

Every 10 years or so I do an educational update on this Evodelusion phenomenon. The Internet just accelerates the knowledge and the best way is by confronting people with thier beliefs and they will give you  ALL they got to "set you straight".  The only problem is that all they got does not show evolution at all.  It shows that the fossil record is correct, no evolution unless you are brainwashed into beliefs. It shows that there is still no evidence of any creature breaking the boundaries of their foundational genetics.  It shows a continual degradation of the genome of all the animals I have studied and that includes humans.

It shows that "genetic engineering" is needed to do any improvements on human beings.  We don't have a genetic engineer with any intelligence to do that on earth today, because scientists are lost in a pile of 18 century religious nonsense.
------------------------------
Here is more on this from posting on youtube

@GoodScienceForYou We have a family in South America if I remember right from the video I saw, that is immune to the AIDs virus. That alone is improvement in a genetic lineage, and there are more.

We have piles upon piles of evidence for evolution. We have for any one God, usually only one holy book and nothing else to point to C.D. as evidence. C.D. starts out saying they have a theory, then tries to match choice bits to it. Evolution starts with evidence, then makes a theory. C.D. is backward

My response:

@KazeKirin I don't ever talk about anything but science. If youre still arguing creationism, vs Evodelusionism, then youre just proving that your "science" is a religion. If you had clear, absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution we would not be discussing this at all. But since there is no evidence of any simple life form ever "evolving" into complex life as is the belief of the Evodelusion religion, you don't have much to stand on. Inference, implication and faith is not science.

GoodScienceForYou
@KazeKirin I counted as much as I could on the fine print of the human genome chart and there are at least 2000 known genetic defects in the human family. That is what we know. We don't know all of them yet.

In every case "natural" selection, surviving the flu, plague, heat, cold, whatever; it limits the genetic information to becoming less advanced and weaker so that if something that is "needed" has atrophied, we will die for lack of its function. Theres no evolution towards improvement.

GoodScienceForYou
@KazeKirin We now have the Human Genome Project with many genetic diseases shown in humans. We know they are genetic defects, because we still have examples of what it looks like in people without any particular disease. That is the most compelling evidence against any sort of magical genetic engineering taking place from natural cause.  It is a gradual wearing down of the genome into a huge pile of genetic defects and weaknesses. Do you understand?

GoodScienceForYou
@KazeKirin 2 of 2 The net is a degeneration of the genome as it is will all cases of the "strong" surviving. It does not improve the whole of humanity to have diabetes and other auto immune diseases in the group. However, if I was going to choose a disease to have I would chose diabetes over death from polio or from any number of amazing microorganisms I have survived in 62 years in my travels around the world including many diseased in India that killed friends of mine.

GoodScienceForYou
@KazeKirin 1 o 2 I came from a genetic lineage that survived the plague, the famine, the swine flu of 1915. I have an extremely powerful immune system. The medical doctors told me I survived polio as a child. They have seen the same bone damage in my spine in other polio victims. However, I also have an auto immune disease, my brothers do, and my sisters. That is because the immune system is out of balance and destroyed my pancreas ability to make insulin. My sister rheumatoid arthritis. It is where the immune system eats the joints and causes severe pain and lack of movement.