On you tube GoodScienceForYou stated that this is the only fair evolution forum on the internet. So far, I've only seen good, sound, logical arguments dismissed by "that's opinion". GoodScineceForYou is the Administrator of this supposedly fair and impartial forum, yet he's effectively abolishing reason and evidence. I haven't seen much of this website, but I've seen enough to know that he has no real arguments against the evidence.

From what I can gather, he dosen't know too much about science either. He claims a lot of things, but there's no evidence to back up any of it. It really seems like he's just denying evolution because it's popular.

So I ask you, GoodScienceForYou, how is this forum any better than any other? I've asked you this many times in our you tube discussion, but you simply ignored it. So I'll post it again:
How is this forum better than any other?

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 15^th, 2010 at 11:32am:

On you tube GoodScienceForYou stated that this is the only fair evolution forum on the internet. So far, I've only seen good, sound, logical arguments dismissed by "that's opinion". GoodScineceForYou is the Administrator of this supposedly fair and impartial forum, yet he's effectively abolishing reason and evidence. I haven't seen much of this website, but I've seen enough to know that he has no real arguments against the evidence. From what I can gather, he dosen't know too much about science either. He claims a lot of things, but there's no evidence to back up any of it. It really seems like he's just denying evolution because it's popular. So I ask you, GoodScienceForYou, how is this forum any better than any other? I've asked you this many times in our you tube discussion, but you simply ignored it. So I'll post it again: How is this forum better than any other?

I have allowed people to post and I answer them.  I do not allow people to dodge direct questions.

I talk about real science and the real foundation of science and all that makes science good.

This garbage is not science, so don't compare it to real science.

You don't know garbage about real science.  On here we only discuss what is real. 
That is the difference.

If you are a troll with your dumb "goose stepping Nazi" nonsense, you can leave now.  If you want to find the truth about this nonsense "Theory of Evolution" then you can find that here.

If you are too stupid to learn, then you are too stupid to learn and I can't help you.

You need to read all you can find here until you start to wake the F up. ;D

Tell me this.  If a pseudo science violates the primary laws of science that have been established, like the standards for what constitutes scientific inquire, the use of the laws of physics, the use of the primary foundational definition of what science stands for, then can that be called science?

;DAnswer that one.

Actually, you constantly dodge the issue. One example is when you repeatedly asked about "synthetic carbon". He never claimed that the carbon it's self was synthetic, so why would you ask about it? Can you not read?

And yes, you constantly talk about real science, but you clearly don't care about it. All you do is ignore real evidence. You go out of your way to repeatedly say "there is no evidence", but you completely ignore it when it is presented. If you don't do that, then you just dismiss the claim without even explaining a single flaw in the evidence or reasoning. All you say is that it's not real science. If it truly isn't, then the least you could do is explain why.

If something really isn't science, then you should e able explain the distinction between it an science.

I've read. I've read enough to know that you only pretend to know about real science.

In answer to your question:
Real science is that which is feasible based on what we know, and in some way observable and/or testable.

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 15^th, 2010 at 2:13pm:

Actually, you constantly dodge the issue. One example is when you repeatedly asked about "synthetic carbon". He never claimed that the carbon it's self was synthetic, so why would you ask about it? Can you not read? And yes, you constantly talk about real science, but you clearly don't care about it. All you do is ignore real evidence. You go out of your way to repeatedly say "there is no evidence", but you completely ignore it when it is presented. If you don't do that, then you just dismiss the claim without even explaining a single flaw in the evidence or reasoning. All you say is that it's not real science. If it truly isn't, then the least you could do is explain why. If something really isn't science, then you should e able explain the distinction between it an science. I've read. I've read enough to know that you only pretend to know about real science. In answer to your question: Real science is that which is feasible based on what we know, and in some way observable and/or testable.

I have explained why this Evodelusionism is not science.  You are not able to hear or understand, because your ego  has gotten the best of you and you are not able to hear that your pet nonsense is just more human nonsense. That is your problem.

You have to explain to me why there is not one single piece of evidence that isn't easlily explained by natural scientific events based on normal genetics, that has nothing relating to this dumb garbage idea based on faith that humans evolved from fish and other such nonsense.

It is a faith based ideology based on mythological nonsense that weak mided fools accept becasue they are too stupid to question authority. :D

Evolution is science. Simply claiming that it isn't dosen't qualify as an explanation. Sadly, that's all you've done. That, and you also spew insults. Insults don't explain anything, they only serve to show your immaturity.

And don't pretend that there is no evidence for evolution. You can claim that there is an alternate explanation for ALL of the evidence, but it's not helping. Present the explanation, and explain why it makes more sense than the current one. If you can't then you've got nothing.

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:14pm:

Evolution is science. Simply claiming that it isn't dosen't qualify as an explanation. Sadly, that's all you've done. That, and you also spew insults. Insults don't explain anything, they only serve to show your immaturity. And don't pretend that there is no evidence for evolution. You can claim that there is an alternate explanation for ALL of the evidence, but it's not helping. Present the explanation, and explain why it makes more sense than the current one. If you can't then you've got nothing.

You have not produced a single piece of objective evidence that clearly shows evolution.  It is all some nonsense interpretation of your religious beliefs as to what you want to believe happened.

There IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY TRANSITION FROM ONE CREATURE MORPHING INTO A WHOLE NEW GENUS!

NO, FISH HAS DECIEDED THAT IT WANTS TO BREATH AIR AND GET OUT OF THE WATER.  HOW DUMB ARE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT feculence?

No sane person would think that was real, UNLESS, they have been brainwashed and indoctrintated by emotional pressures that you caved in to, becasue you are weak minded, weak willed, and unable to stop the onlsaught of other people, whom you give your life to.

Take back your life and give up all this delusional nonsense!

Go read the "SEX" post. It contains what we really know about life on earth.

Like I said, you merely deny evidence. I've given you the evidence many times, but you deny it's existence every time. When I make it abundantly clear, you say "that's an opinion". Instead of explaining how this is true, you simply elongate your statement.

You only claim that there is no evidence, but you have not demonstrated how the evidence we have presented can't be used. And mixing opinion up with reasoning isn't an explanation, it's just pure nonsense.

From what I've seen, you've taken arguments against religion and flipped them, around, using them where they aren't applicable. Maybe it's a coincidence, or maybe you have some other motive, a religious one perhaps. The point is;
Denying the existence of evidence is NOT a refutation

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2010 at 10:51am:

Like I said, you merely deny evidence. I've given you the evidence many times, but you deny it's existence every time. When I make it abundantly clear, you say "that's an opinion". Instead of explaining how this is true, you simply elongate your statement. You only claim that there is no evidence, but you have not demonstrated how the evidence we have presented can't be used. And mixing opinion up with reasoning isn't an explanation, it's just pure nonsense. From what I've seen, you've taken arguments against religion and flipped them, around, using them where they aren't applicable. Maybe it's a coincidence, or maybe you have some other motive, a religious one perhaps. The point is; Denying the existence of evidence is NOT a refutation

You have not produced any evidence that is obvious, and is clearly shows that some simple life form has evolved into complex.

Is that clear?  You don't know what absolutely clear evidence is.  It has NO OTHER PLAUSIBILITY.  IT REQUIRES NO INDOCTRINATION IN ORDER TO BELIEVE IT IS EVIDENCE.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGTH TO TELL YOU WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

ACADEMIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG WHEN THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE.

I've presented plenty of evidence, you've just sidestepped it by calling it an opinion. The same goes for everyone else on the forum. All of the evidence points towards evolution as the most likely cause. There are other possible explanations, but that goes for everything. Gravity, fire, even reality it's self. Do you know why we all accept the same explanation for these things? Because they fit Occam's razor.

You can't disprove that a god is magically holding everything together. You can't disprove magical pixies being attracted to heat. You can't disprove the universe being a dream. The thing is, the current explanations for these things are much more plausible than all other alternatives.

The same goes for evolutions. It hasn't been disproved, and it has more positive proof than any other explanation. This makes it fit Occam's razor best, and this is why people believe in it.

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2010 at 10:42am:

I've presented plenty of evidence, you've just sidestepped it by calling it an opinion. The same goes for everyone else on the forum. All of the evidence points towards evolution as the most likely cause. There are other possible explanations, but that goes for everything. Gravity, fire, even reality it's self. Do you know why we all accept the same explanation for these things? Because they fit Occam's razor. You can't disprove that a god is magically holding everything together. You can't disprove magical pixies being attracted to heat. You can't disprove the universe being a dream. The thing is, the current explanations for these things are much more plausible than all other alternatives. The same goes for evolutions. It hasn't been disproved, and it has more positive proof than any other explanation. This makes it fit Occam's razor best, and this is why people believe in it.

You have not presented any evidence for evoluition, this idea that simple life forms have become complex.
You have presented things that can only be accepted if you already have a belief.
Read that about 100 times until you understand it. That is what you are not understanding.

You are an emotionally driven person who wants to be accepted by academia. You are not able to get an education and avoid the pitfalls of emotionally driven beliefs.

There is NO EVIDENCE that any simple life form has ever evolved.  IT DOES NOT EXIST.

What you presented is simply beliefs projected on very sketchy information.   All of this is easy to refute as belief based and nothing more.

When you can acutally produce what I ask for, then you  can be called a scientist.

All I ask for is absolutely clear, irrefutable obvious to anyone, PHYSICAL evidence that proves that simple lief forms have evolved into complex life forms.

When you can do that, then you will see that this is just some Evodelusional religious nonsense that you got sucked into.

If I already have a belief you say? Not really. You have yet to point out one fault in my evidence. Saying something is an opinion dosen't count, because I have demonstrated clear reasoning. That's the part you're not getting.
Show me where my reasoning is flawed.
Where is it opinion and not evidence?

You keep calling people brainwashed and emotionally driven, but neither are true. You already asked me about the former, and it was completely false. I don't see how the latter is even applicable.

There is evidence, you just refuse to accept it. I'll say it again.
Show me where my reasoning is flawed.
Where is it opinion and not evidence?

You've also claimed the evidence is sketchy, how so? It has ample detail, much more than any reasonable person could want.

I've given you your evidence, now all I ask for is a refutation, instead of a big fat:
"THAT'S AN OPINION!!!!!!!!"

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2010 at 12:55pm:

If I already have a belief you say? Not really. You have yet to point out one fault in my evidence. Saying something is an opinion dosen't count, because I have demonstrated clear reasoning. That's the part you're not getting. Show me where my reasoning is flawed. Where is it opinion and not evidence? You keep calling people brainwashed and emotionally driven, but neither are true. You already asked me about the former, and it was completely false. I don't see how the latter is even applicable. There is evidence, you just refuse to accept it. I'll say it again. Show me where my reasoning is flawed. Where is it opinion and not evidence? You've also claimed the evidence is sketchy, how so? It has ample detail, much more than any reasonable person could want. I've given you your evidence, now all I ask for is a refutation, instead of a big fat: "THAT'S AN OPINION!!!!!!!!"

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

It is nearly impossible to teach a brainwashed person out of their beliefs.  It is equally impossible to teach them that the belief is at the foundation of their INTERPRETATION of what they think the evidence shows.

In all my interactions with the believers in this crap religion they have never taught me why they believe, so that I may be able to share it, because they cannot lay the bottom line obvious clues showing evolution has taken place anywhere on this earth. They start with slogans like "natural selection", "environmental evolutionary pressure" as if these were scientifically proven concepts. They are believed concepts that have ZERO use of the standards used in other sciences, called: use of the scientific method to prove that those slogans are science at all.

When you have the ability to look at all the evidence objectively and try to make conclusions you too will see that this is all we know about life on earth in terms of organic creatures;  When ALL of the evidence talks at the same time to you, you will see this as what we really know to be true.

1/ Creatures come into being: they start to exist.

2/ They reproduce and pass down traits in genetic lineages that have foundational genetics that makes them the creatures they are.

3/ They remain the same genetic lineage creature for as long as they are here, with minor variations that include changes to immune systems, digestive abilities, tolerance to heat, cold, larger or smaller bodies, etc. But they never change into a whole new foundationally different genetic lineage.

4/ They degrade and either go extinct or are still here in the same genetic lineage with the same basic morphology as is shown by the fact that we have fossilized evidence of this for all of the living fossils we have found.

5/ There are no trails of any transition into any new creatures on this planet that vary off the foundational genetic structures of any particular genetic lineage.

For instance in the fossil record as screwed up as it is there is no direct line of any series of transitions of any creature into a new foundationally different creature.  IE No fish has ever become a reptile, nor a reptile become a bird or mammal.

The terms used in this religion are so ridiculous that humans now are considered to not be humans from even ten or so generations ago. This is because it is impossible to breed with ancestors even if one was frozen and could be brought awake to breed today.  Nomal genetics in that we can't breed with ancestors is not speciation.  When the Llama and the Camel can reproduce after being separated for over 2 million years of "speciation" that discredits that way of determing species.

They can't even settle on what a species is, because they are having trouble twisting evidence and terminology into conforming to the belief.

When the facts don't fit, change the facts or don't allow facts to be presented that will destroy the agenda of the persons in power.

Every student I have come across does not know that there is a 6.1 million year old upright human found in Africa.  Do you know why?  It is contrary to the belief, so they don't teach about it and even when it is mentioned it is not studied or examined at all. This is because the radiometric dating system used is extremely flawed and based on belief and assumptions.

By the way this creature's femur is far stronger in form than a modern human with thinner bones and is more frail. This is de-evolutoin from fit to less fit to survive.

http://anthropology.net/2008/03/20/a-multivariate-analysis-of-orrorin-tugenensis-and-the-ancestry-of-bipedalism/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s2U7EsJ1QQ

Are you telling me you need proof of natural selection? It obviously happens, you can see it anywhere. The fittest animals survive, obviously, and then they get to mate. Animals are also seen to select mates with certain qualities, even humans do it. You don't have to be a genius to figure it out. Pretending that things don't exist isn't the same as disproving them.

1/ Creatures come into being: they start to exist.

2/ They reproduce and pass down traits in genetic lineages that have foundational genetics that makes them the creatures they are. Mutations may occur, which change this foundation. The HAVE been observed.

3/ They remain the same genetic lineage creature for as long as they are here, with minor variations that include developing stronger immune systems, digestive abilities, tolerance to heat, cold, larger or smaller bodies, etc. These can accumulate, creating more noticeable changes.They never change into a whole new foundationally different genetic lineage, because lineages aren't changeable. Rather, a lineage diverges at parts, taking different paths, the more successful of which survive.

4/ They either go extinct or are still here in the same genetic lineage with varying morphology's depending on how successful their original shape was. This is shown by the fossilized evidence we have found for all living creatures, some of which have changed, some of which have remained the same, due to their success.

5/ There are trails of transition into any new creatures on this planet that vary off the foundational genetic structures at the start of a particular genetic lineage. They are shown in the fossil record, the data being gathered from the fossils' morphology.

These are based on logical deduction, not speculation, as you claim.
2x+5=11
If I were to say X is 3, would that be based on my opinion, or based on reasoning?

The fossil record shows plenty of trails leading from one species to another, you just deny it.

I don't recall anyone saying the our ancestors from 10 generations ago were of a different species. They are human, because they can reproduce with other humans.
The Camel and Lama can produce a viable offspring, because they have the same number of chromosomes. They are in the same genus. they are both "Camelus". The fact that they are different species, but interbreed-able is an oddity, and technically, they should be classified as different sub-species, but it dosen't disprove evolution. Evolution form one species to another dosen't necessarily happen every 2 million years, all that is stated is that it can happen.
Furthermore, there are plenty of species, like the horse and donkey, that can't produce viable offspring.

The word species has been settled upon, the debate is only about certain organisms, which may or may not fit within the bracket. I've never heard of the word "species" meaning anything other than what it means now.

The facts do fit, you have yet to name one fact that dosen't fit. If the facts really don't fit, then you should probably show me at least one or two facts that don't fit, explain it too. I don't see how an upright man found at that point dosen't fit, so you'll have to explain it. Primitive humans should be found in the past, there isn't really any kind of contradiction there.

The video is also flawed.

Fossils aren't rare, but fossilization is. The fact that they are numerous dosen't disprove this, because fossilization has happened many times. The possibility of getting a 12 on a pair of dice is 1 in 36, but if you roll the dice millions of times, you're bound to get plenty of twelves. Similarly, trillions upon trillions of organisms have died since the dawn of life, so of course there would be many fossils.

Also, the materials they are dating would have started "aging", for lack of a better word, when the fossilization process first started. In other words, they are measuring the rock that replaced the bone, but they're measuring how long it's been since said rock replaced the bone.

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Dec 20^th, 2010 at 1:05pm:

Are you telling me you need proof of natural selection? It obviously happens, you can see it anywhere. The fittest animals survive, obviously, and then they get to mate. Animals are also seen to select mates with certain qualities, even humans do it. You don't have to be a genius to figure it out. Pretending that things don't exist isn't the same as disproving them. 1/ Creatures come into being: they start to exist. 2/ They reproduce and pass down traits in genetic lineages that have foundational genetics that makes them the creatures they are. Mutations may occur, which change this foundation. The HAVE been observed. 3/ They remain the same genetic lineage creature for as long as they are here, with minor variations that include developing stronger immune systems, digestive abilities, tolerance to heat, cold, larger or smaller bodies, etc. These can accumulate, creating more noticeable changes.They never change into a whole new foundationally different genetic lineage, because lineages aren't changeable. Rather, a lineage diverges at parts, taking different paths, the more successful of which survive. 4/ They either go extinct or are still here in the same genetic lineage with varying morphology's depending on how successful their original shape was. This is shown by the fossilized evidence we have found for all living creatures, some of which have changed, some of which have remained the same, due to their success. 5/ There are trails of transition into any new creatures on this planet that vary off the foundational genetic structures at the start of a particular genetic lineage. They are shown in the fossil record, the data being gathered from the fossils' morphology. These are based on logical deduction, not speculation, as you claim. 2x+5=11 If I were to say X is 3, would that be based on my opinion, or based on reasoning? The fossil record shows plenty of trails leading from one species to another, you just deny it. I don't recall anyone saying the our ancestors from 10 generations ago were of a different species. They are human, because they can reproduce with other humans. The Camel and Lama can produce a viable offspring, because they have the same number of chromosomes. They are in the same genus. they are both "Camelus". The fact that they are different species, but interbreed-able is an oddity, and technically, they should be classified as different sub-species, but it dosen't disprove evolution. Evolution form one species to another dosen't necessarily happen every 2 million years, all that is stated is that it can happen. Furthermore, there are plenty of species, like the horse and donkey, that can't produce viable offspring. The word species has been settled upon, the debate is only about certain organisms, which may or may not fit within the bracket. I've never heard of the word "species" meaning anything other than what it means now. The facts do fit, you have yet to name one fact that dosen't fit. If the facts really don't fit, then you should probably show me at least one or two facts that don't fit, explain it too. I don't see how an upright man found at that point dosen't fit, so you'll have to explain it. Primitive humans should be found in the past, there isn't really any kind of contradiction there. The video is also flawed. Fossils aren't rare, but fossilization is. The fact that they are numerous dosen't disprove this, because fossilization has happened many times. The possibility of getting a 12 on a pair of dice is 1 in 36, but if you roll the dice millions of times, you're bound to get plenty of twelves. Similarly, trillions upon trillions of organisms have died since the dawn of life, so of course there would be many fossils. Also, the materials they are dating would have started "aging", for lack of a better word, when the fossilization process first started. In other words, they are measuring the rock that replaced the bone, but they're measuring how long it's been since said rock replaced the bone.

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

You are obviously living proof that people will fall for anything if there is enough social coercion and a need to believe in something.


I don't think I can help you to get free of this, because you are closed minded and think this feculence is real.

Breeding, killing, environmental conditions have NEVER cause any creatures to violate their genetic structures.

You are under the delusion that life has no organic organization nor structures.  That is is some how magically "fluid" and changeable by some mystical causes. There is no evidence of any changes from a very simple life form to a complex life form. The opposite is true.  There is only shown degradation to all genomes, gene function loss, and a general weakening of all creatures.

You  are only speaking in religious rhetoric.  You are so lost in this ideology, you don't even understand that you are doing it.

Opinions, religious slogans, axioms, and belief is NOT evidence.

You think this is logical, because you want to believe, not because it is logical.

When you have real physical irrefutable evidence, come and show it to me.  But I don't think you  even know what I am asking.

If 70% of the "mutations" are negative and reduce fitness, cause gene loss and genetic diseased then the NET is always de-evolution towards weaker, sicker, and eventual extinction as is shown in all evidence.

Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2010 at 10:51am:

Like I said, you merely deny evidence. I've given you the evidence many times, but you deny it's existence every time. When I make it abundantly clear, you say "that's an opinion". Instead of explaining how this is true, you simply elongate your statement. You only claim that there is no evidence, but you have not demonstrated how the evidence we have presented can't be used. And mixing opinion up with reasoning isn't an explanation, it's just pure nonsense. From what I've seen, you've taken arguments against religion and flipped them, around, using them where they aren't applicable. Maybe it's a coincidence, or maybe you have some other motive, a religious one perhaps. The point is; Denying the existence of evidence is NOT a refutation

You are funny as hell! (and I don't believe in "hell")
Evolution by definition has not occurred. There is only de-evoluton from a better and more fit condition as is actually shown in evidence.

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

I look at the same evidence and make purely objective and logical observations. These observations have nothing to do with anything but scientific inquiry without any beliefs in anything but genetics and all the evidence as a whole.

You have not presented any objective evidence that "says" evolution is true or even suggested.

Here you go!
http://images.wikia.com/pokemon/images/9/95/Evolution.gif

There! Proof!  ;D

As this is how you are expecting to see evolution happen here is your evidence. :D

I would go on to explain why evolution doesnt happen like this but you will ignore it just like you are probably ignoring what I am typing already.

If you have such a high intellect why dont you use it to read, absorb and contribute to the discussion rather than copy&paste the same lines?

I would love to have a true discussion but so far all evidence of your tactics is that you are not open to discussion.

The problem with any discussion is dealing with faith and belief.   It is not possible to overcome brainwashed ignorance.

Since I have avoided all religious faith and belief, for my entire life, and I have studied science for my entire life.  I don't think you are ready to learn what I know. 

First you  need to read all that I have written.  Then when you come across something that you don't understand ask questions.

Don't make any statements unless you are willing to back them up with evidence. 

Simple.

So, far all I have gotten is this pile of BS.  "There is mountains of evidence for evolution."

I have had all of this evidence presented to me, and there is no evidence for this:

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

Ok on a more serious note:

You argue there is no Evolution on De-Evolution.

I wish to argue that what you are calling De-Evolution IS Evolution.

You say that you have seen that the human race is de-evolving from a more powerful specimen to a weaker one with a loss of DNA.

Question 1: Am I correct so far ?(from what I have read of yours, I am afraid I am at work currently so do not have time to flick back).


So if what I have read from you so far is correct then I wish to argue that this is Evolution to a more refined state.

We are gradually becoming less powerful with thinner bone and skull structure due to our progressive brain development.

As our intellect has increased our use of tools and weapons has developed. This means that with the use of weapons the weaker members of the primitive society were able to hold their ground and become adequate hunters and survivors thus meaning the genes for the less powerful structure and the weaker bone was passed down.

With todays tools and weaponry or even that available during the renaissance the puniest and most asthmatic of men would have had a “field leveller” meaning that they were able to compete with the biggest and strongest thus it was now those weaker individuals who were able to survive and probably more-so if their intellect was higher.

Question 2: Have you understood what I am trying to explain? I don’t mean this question in any malice or derogatory way I just wish to ensure my point is clear.


I look forward to your response and hope it is more in keeping with what I have suggested and discusses these points properly in a valid and scientific way rather than other replies I have seen where there was no discussion just child-like name calling between parties and denial without true cause.

Thank you

ProofMan wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:53am:

Ok on a more serious note: You argue there is no Evolution on De-Evolution. I wish to argue that what you are calling De-Evolution IS Evolution. You say that you have seen that the human race is de-evolving from a more powerful specimen to a weaker one with a loss of DNA. Question 1: Am I correct so far ?(from what I have read of yours, I am afraid I am at work currently so do not have time to flick back). So if what I have read from you so far is correct then I wish to argue that this is Evolution to a more refined state. We are gradually becoming less powerful with thinner bone and skull structure due to our progressive brain development. As our intellect has increased our use of tools and weapons has developed. This means that with the use of weapons the weaker members of the primitive society were able to hold their ground and become adequate hunters and survivors thus meaning the genes for the less powerful structure and the weaker bone was passed down. With todays tools and weaponry or even that available during the renaissance the puniest and most asthmatic of men would have had a “field leveller” meaning that they were able to compete with the biggest and strongest thus it was now those weaker individuals who were able to survive and probably more-so if their intellect was higher. Question 2: Have you understood what I am trying to explain? I don’t mean this question in any malice or derogatory way I just wish to ensure my point is clear. I look forward to your response and hope it is more in keeping with what I have suggested and discusses these points properly in a valid and scientific way rather than other replies I have seen where there was no discussion just child-like name calling between parties and denial without true cause. Thank you

This is the original definition based on the actual etymology of the word.
Evotards will take scientific terms and make them fit with the religious beliefs.
This is the ONLY real definition of evolution. Anything else is religious crap dogma.

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.  ( I have this book.)

Your statement is not factual nor scientific at all it is wishful thinking.  Humans would love to think they are evolving to a better smarter species, but there is no evidence of that.

"We are gradually becoming less powerful with thinner bone and skull structure due to our progressive brain development."

The capacity of a brain for information and understanding as well as being aware of science is not pre-required to be used but to exist in the first place. Capacity is not knowledge.

If you take a genius human and lock them up with no books, no verbal communication and just feed them and hose them off when they are dirty,  then the capacity is still there, but it has not been used.

The Herto, is evidence of a superior cranial capacity.  You will not find many Evotards referring to the Herto, because it destroys the religion.

If you disregard the ridiculous methods that paleontologist use to date things and how badly they perform any calibration on any part of this, you will realize they are full of crap when it comes to the dating.   There is absolutely no way to verify any of their data. PERIOD. It is horrible use of assumptions and manipulated data.  They keep on searching the ground until they find the oldest radioactive elements.

Realizing that all we have are extremely poorly dated fossils that we have no idea how old they are, will help you a lot. There are some ideas you can use from DNA really to show the reduction.  It is like a historical map of genetic degradation.

Realizing that in all the DNA we have examined so far we see ONLY losses of genetic functions, atrophy, atavisms, and mutations that cause poor weak cell replication, diseases.  We have so many "new" diseases in the last century that have never been seen before.

The fact that chimps, gorillas, orangutans, have lost so much brain capacity as is shown in the DNA comparisons of humans to chimps is evidence of this.  They lost cranial size and brain functions as the proteans are lost and gone forever.  I hypothesize it was from living near volcanoes and lots of radioactive minerals.  The Macaque monkey loves to bath in radioactive volcanic pools. 

Pretty much all of the "hominids" are "retarded humans" and are dated horribly by the radiometric dating and other assumptions.

Take the skulls of the Herto, Human, Homo Erectus, Ergaster, Chimp. Gorilla, orangutan and Macaque monkey.
Place them in order of crainal distortion and you will see nothing but de-evolution from a larger brain capacity to smaller.  Humans are still a little larger but smaller crainium than Herto.
Chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, Macaqua are all much younger than humans.  The fact that we have so few specimins shows this. There is only one set of Chimp teeth fossils, much younger than Herto as best as we can date. The Gorilla is much younger than humans, so is the orangutan, and Macaqua monkey.  They have some serious DNA evidence of very close ties to our super-species ancestors.

All of them have the apparent skull remnants of the Herto.
The gorilla has a protrusion left where the skull was at one time rounded.

The original human species was far more fit, had a larger brain capacity, stronger thinker bones and much more dense muscle tissue. The chimp shows this as it is much stronger than a human now, retaining that protean in a much stronger form.

As we de-evolved from fit to the degenerates we are today, it is rare and a freak to find any real intelligence that is objective and capable of studying all that we have to offer and realizing what is going on.

The original human had a much more adaptive skin and had the ability to go very dark as needed in pigment. It had the ability to grow hair for warmth. The idea of hairy bodies would make sense prior to living in warm only climates and having clothing and shelter.

We did no evolve from a subspecies.  We have all de-evolved from a superior design to a frail and now pretty stupid species. There was a super-species of human prior to what we have now.

We are still killing each other, finding new ways to destroy the planet, oblivious to anything that is obvious, and are so wrapped up in survival issues still.  It is rare to find real intelligence.
We have millions of people and children going to bed hungry every night.  We kill and maim each other in the name of God.
We destroy the human genome in the name of "medicines" that screw up cell reproduction.
We constantly radiate our brains with various frequencies of radiation that we never had in nature.
We eat crap foods out of ignorance and laziness. 
We don't have the capacity to understand basic physics.  Instead we make up idiotic ideas that science doesn't need a cause. WTF is that about.

Our schools are producing dysfunctional, hateful, people.  They are so confused and filled with conflicting data it is a wonder they can wipe themselves at all. The lowest common denominator is the norm, to be "politically correct" we must not have any people who excel.  If we do we make them into freaks.

How can a scientist call themselves scientists when they remove "cause" from science?  There is no science without cause and effect. PERIOD.  Just because they are so weak minded they can't even attempt to find the cause, is no reason to pull the random card out of their asses and say with "authority" this is a random cause?

There is nothing on this planet without cause.

Some things to ponder.

 

Often the things that give us the most comfort and even feed us, are the things that are destroying our genome.

Look at these guys.

---

Loving the picture.

I am afraid I didnt explain myself properly.
I was not meaning cranial capacity in volume, purely the contents.

As we lived on this planet as one species or another or however you want to view it, our understandings grew in all aspects of life, such as the use of tools and the fashioning of clothes which is what I am posing as a reason for our physical weakening.

With a means for the weaker to survive why would only purely strong genes be decended?

With a method of covering ones body, why would hair and darker skin be of use? Especially as the species spread further north and south of the equator where climates are colder.

ProofMan wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 2:11am:

Loving the picture. I am afraid I didnt explain myself properly. I was not meaning cranial capacity in volume, purely the contents. As we lived on this planet as one species or another or however you want to view it, our understandings grew in all aspects of life, such as the use of tools and the fashioning of clothes which is what I am posing as a reason for our physical weakening. With a means for the weaker to survive why would only purely strong genes be decended? With a method of covering ones body, why would hair and darker skin be of use? Especially as the species spread further north and south of the equator where climates are colder.

Once we left the ideal location for humans to live, we lost genetic features for survival.

In the north we lose the ability to deal with intense sun by atrophy of skin pigmentation.

We go south and the heat is intense and food is different.Clothing reduces the need for hair.
All are reductions in genetic information.

As far as intelligence, the seers from as far as 6000 years ago were far more intelligent than most people I have ever met.  They understood the human condition better than anyone I know of living today. 

Have you read the Aruvedic scriptures?  How about the Mosaic law?  That is only about 3000 years old.

How did anyone in those days know that you should not crap in your village, have sex in the anus with men, have sex with sisters and brothers?  All of those are found in science today as the only means they had to preserve the genetic lineage from defects and mutations caused by virus bacteria, fungus, and really bad interbreeding.

How did they know not to domesticate pigs?  Pigs are the breeding ground for extremely bad strains of virus that can kill and mutate humans.

We actually know that but we still are so degenerated we breed them and side by side with chickens.  And you think humans are smarter?

How did they know not to have sex with multiple partners was bad for propagating viral mutations that cause cancer and birth defects?

The development of antibiotics to fight off venereal diseases and bacteria mutations cause by some really stupid things that humans do is contradictory to genomic health.

We strengthen bacteria because we do stupid things that cause the bacteria to mutate in the first place, then we weaken our immune system.  How is that "evolution".

Morality has some pretty intelligent human preservation science in it. 

Because of human stupidity and compulsions we don't want morality to get in the way of "fun". So, we continue to do the stupidest crap to our bodies and we do all we can to speed up extinction.

Do you really think humans are smarter?  Have more wisdom?

We can barely wipe our asses and we think we have concurred science?  We don't even know what a human is.
We don't know what life is.

When you see a dead body, what was alive in it?  What made it alive?

I really have to go to bed.  It is late here.

Then our discussion will continue tomorrow.

I am thoroughly enjoying this as we are keeping away from degenerative name calling and having true discussions.


In the north we lose the ability to deal with intense sun by atrophy of skin pigmentation.


Quote:

We go south and the heat is intense and food is different.Clothing reduces the need for hair. All are reductions in genetic information.

In a way I do understand what you mean and yes it is a reduction in genetic information, but that reduction lead us to be better adapted to that climate with the redundant information then being discarded.

So are we able to agree that over time our species has adapted to its surroundings and has discarded the DNA that, at that time, it no longer had any use for?

I do understand the basis for your views and find it fascinating so I am trying to establish common ground between us.

ProofMan wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 3:29am:

Then our discussion will continue tomorrow. I am thoroughly enjoying this as we are keeping away from degenerative name calling and having true discussions. In the north we lose the ability to deal with intense sun by atrophy of skin pigmentation. Quote: We go south and the heat is intense and food is different.Clothing reduces the need for hair. All are reductions in genetic information. In a way I do understand what you mean and yes it is a reduction in genetic information, but that reduction lead us to be better adapted to that climate with the redundant information then being discarded. So are we able to agree that over time our species has adapted to its surroundings and has discarded the DNA that, at that time, it no longer had any use for? I do understand the basis for your views and find it fascinating so I am trying to establish common ground between us.

Losing skin pigment, or gaining darker skin is neutral as far as diseases as long as you stay and don't migrate to where you need it.  Loss of pigment can help with cancer if the northern, white, people move south or to high altitudes with high UV or the sun ever becomes intense in the UK, Holland, Germany, Norway, Sweden etc.  It is better if they stay in the 50th parallel or start interbreeding with Sherpas, orientals from Tibet or India, Middle easterners or  Blacks, Greeks and Italians.  Those traits can be mixed back in.

The blacks in America are showing a gradual decline in sickle cell anemia, by interbreeding it away.  It seems that weak genetics is overpowered by the stronger and more healthy in the interbreeding process.  The best, strongest athletes we have today are mixed race.  Blacks with mixed white oriental, southern European and Middle eastern  blood seem to dominate sports.

Natural events are not the problem with our genome. It is the events we were never to have to deal with that are killing us off.

Another image for you showing the genetic links to monkeys.

---

Hey, I've been reading these two pages of scrape you guys put down, and I have a few comments.
First of all, Goodscienceforyou, no offense, but i notice that all too commonly you write people off who dissagree with you as "indoctrinated into the "Religion" of evolution, weak minded, and helpless when effected by social coersion." I mean, I think all of us are effected by at least a small portion of those things, but in all reality I think it's fairly balanced. Also, i think it's a bit too easy to just say that about someone. I mean, honestly, i think you are all those things even more than i, but i dont go shoving it in your face, because i want to see how far i can go logically and evidence-wise before we hit a wall. Obviously, there can be little to gain from one another when both parties believe the other to be indoctrinated and closed-minded. However, I hope that in our correspondences, we can be rid of these accusations and let the evidence do the talking. That way, the person with the best evidence, sources, and logic will prevail, not emotions and banter. I propose a battle of evidence, with identified, truthfull, scientific sources. This will lead (i hope) to a more balanced, fact based confrontation, rather than one where both sides can go nowhere. I am relatively new to this forum having created an account today, so you will excuse me for perhaps putting comments in the wrong places. Oh, also, as a last note, i noticed that this site is for balanced, open minded, free minded discussion about evolution and its successes and faults. In light of this, i would (if it were my place) suggest eliminating much of the bias in  your statements and comments about videos (namely childish things that have no place, like "evolutards" and evodelusionists") however cleverly they are thought of. Because, as we know, adults dont need condescending remarks about their scientific/religious stances.
Lastly, i would like to share with you my admiration for your search for truth and a mind free of bias from society. It is a noble goal indeed.

Itseasyifyouthink wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 11:07am:

Hey, I've been reading these two pages of scrape you guys put down, and I have a few comments. First of all, Goodscienceforyou, no offense, but i notice that all too commonly you write people off who dissagree with you as "indoctrinated into the "Religion" of evolution, weak minded, and helpless when effected by social coersion." I mean, I think all of us are effected by at least a small portion of those things, but in all reality I think it's fairly balanced. Also, i think it's a bit too easy to just say that about someone. I mean, honestly, i think you are all those things even more than i, but i dont go shoving it in your face, because i want to see how far i can go logically and evidence-wise before we hit a wall. Obviously, there can be little to gain from one another when both parties believe the other to be indoctrinated and closed-minded. However, I hope that in our correspondences, we can be rid of these accusations and let the evidence do the talking. That way, the person with the best evidence, sources, and logic will prevail, not emotions and banter. I propose a battle of evidence, with identified, truthfull, scientific sources. This will lead (i hope) to a more balanced, fact based confrontation, rather than one where both sides can go nowhere. I am relatively new to this forum having created an account today, so you will excuse me for perhaps putting comments in the wrong places. Oh, also, as a last note, i noticed that this site is for balanced, open minded, free minded discussion about evolution and its successes and faults. In light of this, i would (if it were my place) suggest eliminating much of the bias in  your statements and comments about videos (namely childish things that have no place, like "evolutards" and evodelusionists") however cleverly they are thought of. Because, as we know, adults dont need condescending remarks about their scientific/religious stances. Lastly, i would like to share with you my admiration for your search for truth and a mind free of bias from society. It is a noble goal indeed.

I respond to people based on the evidence.  If they are full of crap and will not even have a two way conversation then they go away quickly. These are the religious fanatics.

Since in my long life of science, I have never, NEVER found any empirical, objective evidence for evolution, it makes me question the sanity of those who believe in this.

When I was quite young I realized quickly that people are brainwashed into beliefs based on nothing but a desire for it to "be that way". 

Wouldn't it be nice if God used evolution to create humans?  Bla Bla Bla! 

The facts are against any form of evolution, only genetics and the original design of the creature that was set free on this planet.  And it voilates the other laws of science.

There is no other science where magical occurances are the "answer" to the cause.

When the Evotards were free to make up crap, and they created the "science" they degraded biology more than any  other science, because the evidence could be "interpreted" by them who were in charge of the evidence. 

The wolves guarding the chicken house. 

Now we have little children believing in this crap before they take on science class, because "mommy and daddy" believe.
The cartoon shows on TV show fantasy creatures (that never existed) as if they were real.

It is a sickness of society to believe in pseudo science that has never had any evidence that shows this as possible.

I realized that fuddy duddies were out in the field projecting belief on fossils and they were faking data, because they all do the same crap. The first guy finds the evidence and proclaims what it is. Then the experts "correct" his misinterpretations. Every friggin time in my 42 years of reading each and every "finding".

It is a well protected religious cult that makes a lot of money. It, like all religious human garbage beliefs,  has infiltrated academia, because it can and it is a popular ideology and it makes lots of money.

The people who get paid to perpetuate this BS are the enemies of science and ultimately the enemies of truth and for humanity to ever find the truth.

Here it is in a nutshell

Evolution:  "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."  Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.

http://evolutionforum.info/yabbfiles/Attachments/bullshit800x600_copy.jpg