you are right, this is a lot and it’s getting really long. We should just focus on one thing.
“When deprived of oxygen, the fruit fly will do exactly the same thing every time.
This shows no evolution, because the trait is inherent in the creature, and if it repeats with the same experiment then it does not follow the axioms of your religion, stating that these are "random" and have no cause.
In the Theory of Evolution there is no science but there is ONE TIME events that never happen twice the same way.”
>> but i didn’t say this is the definite proof of evolution. But if you keep in mind that things like this doesn’t only happen to one fly, but it happens to many. Of course the same mutation never happens twice (or extremely rarely) but whatever happens stays in the genome and it gets passed on. The mutation might be neutral or bad or good but it doesn’t have to take effect immediately but nevertheless, it gets passed on to the offspring. But once it does take effect slowly or immediately the lucky ones are more likely to propagate and breed more thus passing down it’s genetic codes while the unlucky ones will decline in population or extinct.
This is just to prove your statement “there’s only genetic degradation” wrong, not an argument directed at proving evolution (at least not what i had in mind)
“You do know that there is not one single celled creature on this planet that has been found to evolve into even two cells, much less the billions we have?”
>> single celled organisms doesn’t just pop into multi-celled organism overnight nor does it have to grow out another one like a tumour. Right now, string algae are found to be actually many individual micro organisms coming together, gather to form string like shapes in the water to float better and to feed better. Even after they are broken down, the individual segments can survive and will try to reform again. this can be the beginning step of lesser-celled organism to multi-celled organism
“The first rule of science is the "LAW OF CAUSE and EFFECT".
If something repeats then it has a cause. If it repeats the same way every time then it is programmed to do that by "intelligence".”
>> but evolution never violated that law, it never said a fish gave birth to a human, nor a duck gave birth to a chicken. All it says is that things tends to adapt to survive, adapting causes changes to the body and when many changes are accumulated overtime (we’re talking billions of years) and displayed on a A4 paper. Yes, it does look like a fish became a man and it gives the illusion that there were “stages” when actually everything is gradual.
>> you cant say that an “intelligence” must be involved. for example, a chemical reaction, you don’t need to tell it how to react or what should come out of the reaction. It happens and you cant tell it to stop or start (without changing it). Every element have their own unique property and the same thing will happen over and over again if you mix the same things over and over again, it doesn’t matter if you do it upright, in new York, upside-down or outerspace. It will happen over and over again without the intervention of any sort of intelligence.
“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.”
>> and apparently Webster’s Dictionary isn’t written by an evolutionary scientist. I mean “organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity,” are you kidding me?? “inorganic”?? it’s making more implications to abiogenesis then evolution. Go ask a evolutionary biologist what is evolution, visit multiple evolution sites and see what it is. If what the multiple evolution site gave the same or similar definition that is parallel to what a evo biologist would say and different from what Webster says, then Webster is false.
“There is no science in delusional ideas. That means it can only be a religion that is sold to the vulnerable children by society. Society uses schools to indoctrinate their children into the "beliefs" of the time that produce the desired results in the children.”
>> you’re right, and claiming “intelligent design” or “creationism” isn’t gonna get you anywhere as zero evidence exists. The only argument that appeared on that side is “because of xxxx, then it must be yyyy”. We call it argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.
>> i suggest taking a look in this page. A gathering of quotes from different published biology books defining what evolution is (there are citations on this page as well). But do yourself a favour and compare with your Webster definition and see if there’s a difference.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html“This Evodelusionism is part of the "Liberalism" religion of allowing anything to "go". Then calling it natural.”
>> explain how does evolution have anything at all to do with politics (liberals). The thing is, i don’t give a rat’s ass about politics, never interested in it, hardly bother to vote sometimes. So just to get things clear for you, my belief in evolution isn’t based on politics or indoctrination, it was based on research and a crap load of reading.
“The evidence is clear as can be, that humans are genetically degrading faster than ever.”
>> yes, bodywise. A normal human can hardly give birth without needing medical accompany. But technology wise, we are advancing.
“My religion of real "Science" dictates that survival and health of the earth is primary over some retarded cultures need for sexual freedom and money.”
>> i still don’t understand the sex & money part, nor do i care as it has nothing to do with evolution
“Pay close attention;
The actual evidence in Mitochondria DNA shows that Eukaryota mitochondria has lost most of it genes from "evolution".
Gene loss is not evolution but is genetic degradation.”
>> genes in the mitochondria has been lost, but now it’s in our cell’s genome. Our cell no longer requires the mitochondria itself to do the duplicating. The mitochondria is an organelle, not a separate organism anymore, and this is done through symbiosis. It’s the same thing with chloroplasts, all have traces of their own DNA and all shows strong resemblance (which i’ve showed in point form) to eukaryotic bacteria instead of prokaryotic cells.
“The final premises of this crap religion is that humans evolved from fish.”
>> then you don’t know it as good as i do.
“Single cells........marine life.....fish.....reptiles....birds and mammals... humans.
So your religion teaches that we evolved from fish. Don't tell lies.”
>> that’s what they teach when you are in grade 3. Now, you learn protein synthesis, symbiosis, cellular evolution... but if that’s how you learned evolution now then im truly sorry.
“The birds of the Galapagos grow beaks longer or shorter depending on the difficulty of finding foods”
>> well, duh. Rain stops (or become less frequent), bird with advantages (bigger beaks) survives more easily, have greater chances of propagating over small beaks more, more bird with bigger beaks. Rain returns, small beak bird repopulate so you start seeing small beaks again. So? Natural selection much? That only support darwin’s Evolution by Natural Selection. The birds don’t just decides to have long beaks and short beaks, natural selection explains it in a perfect, logical and sensible way (what i said at the top).
>> that video you sent me didn’t move me a tad bit, in fact you should be sceptical too as it’s been narrated by an idiot (Nathan Wells). Here’s why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAY9d-tiO_Y&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list...===== READ AFTER YOU WATCH THE VIDEO ===========================================
He began off by saying “you’re still light years away from making life”. He used light years to measure time, i mean just by hearing that you could tell that he clearly doesn’t understand garbage about science.
Furthermore, based on his logic, if i pop him in the atlantic ocean, should i expect another idiot to emerge from his innards?
So yea, im remaining VERY skeptical about that one. The statistic in that video might hold some weight, but the explanation he gave holds no weight for me.
>> your video also mentioned micro and macro evolution. I think that is bs. If you place a long series of “micro” evolution in chronological order over millions of years, then you compare the organism at the beginning of the picture to the one at the end and you’ll get what you’ll see as “macro” evolution. There is no micro or macro evolution, just evolution.
“The facts is that DNA shows only genetic degradation in humans and all the mammals we have the DNA to study.”
>> but that’s not true, mutations doesn’t ONLY do bad, it can be neutral or even good. It may accumulate in the genome for generations. For example, the HIV virus has genetic mutation very frequently, in fact way faster than the cures can be developed and that’s why we cant find a cure for it. That’s not “genetic degradation”, but more like “genetic improvement”.
>> this video tells of man-made selection which covers the example i commented earlier about farm animals and plants are a result of man-made selection. “Not genetic degradation”, some “genetic improvement”. For example wheats, corns... they can grow in very dense areas, grow very fast and doesn’t die as easily as they would if they were naturally selected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwtpahwJJ8