The Evolution Deception

Worsaae

Active member
Messages
50
Reactions
109
Evolution deception? If two people get a child, you can see that the child has half the dna from both parents. If it's 2 blacks, they will get a black child. That's literally all there is to evolution. Neanderthals? We can compare neanderthal DNA with that of modern humans and trace it back by calculating the length of the neanderthal dna in modern humans, because each generation cuts it in half.
You can see evolution if you pair lions and tigers, and you get a liger. You can see evolution in horse breeding, dog breeding, plants we cultivate and so on. Evolution is all around you and very much real.

"If humans evolved from apes, how come apes still exist?"

If europeans evolved from africans, how come africans still exist? If you evolved from your parents, how come your brother still exists?

The answer is simple: You might both have the same ancestor but evolved divergently.

If your desire to look away from evolution is due to religious reasons, then you don't have to. Evolution does not disprove god, an intelligent creator or ancient aliens. It's simply a scientific fact like gravity. Everyone can feel gravity and everyone can see evolution
 

ScottFreeman

Well-known member
Messages
124
Reactions
455
Evolution deception? If two people get a child, you can see that the child has half the dna from both parents. If it's 2 blacks, they will get a black child. That's literally all there is to evolution. Neanderthals? We can compare neanderthal DNA with that of modern humans and trace it back by calculating the length of the neanderthal dna in modern humans, because each generation cuts it in half.
You can see evolution if you pair lions and tigers, and you get a liger. You can see evolution in horse breeding, dog breeding, plants we cultivate and so on. Evolution is all around you and very much real.

"If humans evolved from apes, how come apes still exist?"

If europeans evolved from africans, how come africans still exist? If you evolved from your parents, how come your brother still exists?

The answer is simple: You might both have the same ancestor but evolved divergently.

If your desire to look away from evolution is due to religious reasons, then you don't have to. Evolution does not disprove god, an intelligent creator or ancient aliens. It's simply a scientific fact like gravity. Everyone can feel gravity and everyone can see evolution
Aren't you speaking of natural variation rather than evolution?
Post automatically merged:

It's simply a scientific fact like gravity. Everyone can feel gravity and everyone can see evolution
I believe the word 'gravity' is a term you've used to describe the resistance to lift that you 'feel'. That word itself conveys no particular meaning to me other than that yes, I can't jump two miles straight up and that you've named it 'gravity'. It could just as easily be attributed to The Electric Universe Theory – ►Fact file ►Reference ►Resource ►Articles ►Information or something else entirely.

It's much the circular argument that I hear from my older friends about going to the doctor for arthritis. They ask the doctor why their fingers and knees hurt. He's says arthritis (literally 'join pain') as if repeating their symptom back to them somehow gives an answer.

And again, in reference to evolution...no. I don't 'see' it. I see variation in species. What I don't see is one species turning into another. Or, we could all be blobs of plasma in ether conditioned to 'see' our environment as we do. I really don't know anything at all. If you hang around you'll see what I mean. o_O
 
Last edited:

Worsaae

Active member
Messages
50
Reactions
109
What's the difference between variation and evolution? "Turns into a new species" what's your definition of a new species? It's fluid and gradual. There is no clear lines. If we paired a chimp and a human, we would get a hybridspecies 50% dna from chimp and 50% dna from human. We could continue this for some generations and let's say 90% is chimp dna and 10% human, would this be a chimp or human or still hybrid? Where is the line? Are lions and tigers the same species? are ligers a new species? Where is the clear line?
 

0harris0

Well-known member
Messages
176
Reactions
369
^^^^ 10/10 natural variation! otherwise we'd have evolved dogs to have flippers or sumat!!

not saying evolution is totally inconceivable, just not in the way we're led to believe! maybe it does exist in some form, but dependant on some other external influences (weather? viral gene modification? aliens? radiation? god? space dust? that 2 week old cup of coffee?! all of the above?!)
Or, we could all be blobs of plasma in ether conditioned to 'see' our environment as we do
👽 i feel ya on that one mate!!
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,329
One thing CAN not change into another. DNA doesn't work that way. One thing (creature, plant, human, animal, etc.) has a genetic blueprint. You can change certain features of a genetic blueprint (taller, shorter, darker or lighter hair, longer or shorter eyelashes,etc.) but to change the blueprint from a doghouse (so to speak) to a cathedral is not possible. If you want something entirely different, you have to have an entirely different blueprint. Evolution, as taught, is a lie and flies in the face of observable data and reason.

Scientists say that human evolution stopped about 10,000 years ago. How convenient. Did nature find perfection in our form and just quit working on the project? Is nature intelligent and knew when it reached "perfection"? Did nature just get tired and decide (decision is an intelligent attribute) "to hell with it"? Look at the language of the evolutionists. They continually say things like "maybe", "perhaps", "possibly" (in other words: we don't know). They also say things like "nature chose" or "decided", etc. They give attributes of intelligence. consciousness, and will to what they claim is an unconscious, unintelligent, unfeeling universal force. They anthropomorphize nature itself assigning personality and industry as well as intelligent design capabilities and the will to carry them out.

Survival of the fittest is also somewhat of a hoax. I may be weaker, slower, and dumber than you but if I'm willing to push you in front of the attacking bear then I survive and you don't. It's more like survival of the most ruthless. I think we can look around at our current state of affairs in the world and realize that indeed the most ruthless survived and the more noble got eaten by predators or sent off to die in wars fighting for a 'noble" cause whereas the less noble deserted or didn't show up at all.

It is simply not possible for one genetic blueprint to change into another genetic blueprint. There is only one genetic mutation I know of that confers any sort of benefit at all: sickle cell anemia whose victims are less likely to develop malaria. I doubt it's the sickle cell conferring the advantage but rather the mosquito detecting the defective blood and refusing to bite. None of the sick-as-hell anemia patients I've taken care of would prefer to have sickle cell anemia; they'd all rather take their chances with the mosquitos. Mutations are not a benefit.

I once took care of an anacephalic infant who was sent home to die (which he did an hour after I got there). The child was the offspring of two mentally retarded siblings (brother/sister). No genetic advantages had been conferred on any of the people in that room. Mutations do not make beneficial changes.
 

0harris0

Well-known member
Messages
176
Reactions
369
the more noble got sent off to die in wars fighting for a 'noble" cause whereas the less noble deserted or didn't show up at all.
errrrrrm not sure how serious you are about that statment but I quite strongly disagree... I'd say the ones who decided to not "show up" were probably more noble, and probably made the better decision too!

It is simply not possible for one genetic blueprint to change into another genetic blueprint.
how do cancer cells form?
it's possible for a cell type to mutate beyond its blueprint, surely then, theoretically, a larger organism could technically mutate into another?
(not saying it's likely to occur in nature, or that it proves evolution, but there's more to "nature" than we comprehend, and there could be some wavelengths/ particles/ weebyjeebys flying through space that fk with living organisms genetic structure... that could be "evolution"! :p )
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,329
errrrrrm not sure how serious you are about that statment but I quite strongly disagree... I'd say the ones who decided to not "show up" were probably more noble, and probably made the better decision too!

I was trying to be succinct but here I am having to elaborate. While I agree that those who didn't show up or who deserted probably made the better decision, at a time when everyone around you is confirming that to fight is noble then it would be perceived as ignoble to not fight. Perceptions and societal norms can be deceptive.

how do cancer cells form?
it's possible for a cell type to mutate beyond its blueprint, surely then, theoretically, a larger organism could technically mutate into another?

"Cancer is the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body. Cancer develops when the body’s normal control mechanism stops working. Old cells do not die and instead grow out of control, forming new, abnormal cells. These extra cells may form a mass of tissue, called a tumor." You'll notice they aren't dog cells; they're still human cells whose CONTROL MECHANISM stops working causing abnormal growth and proliferation. If you build a house with stairs that go 20 stories above the roof, they're still stairs, not trees, just inappropriate stairs.
(not saying it's likely to occur in nature, or that it proves evolution, but there's more to "nature" than we comprehend, and there could be some wavelengths/ particles/ weebyjeebys flying through space that fk with living organisms genetic structure... that could be "evolution"! :p )
 

0harris0

Well-known member
Messages
176
Reactions
369
I hear ya, just thought it was a bit of a strange analogy, maybe some sarcastic quotation marks would have helped the point! the "noble" cause if ya will ;)

funnily enough, i know what cancer is.

i'm not trying to disprove what you're saying, just adding some speculation to the conversation... what i said is still theoretically possible whether you think so or not, because it's a theory.... there could be something totally unknown to us that can cause such an advanced mutation.

do atoms not become different atoms when they gain mass?
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,329
I hear ya, just thought it was a bit of a strange analogy, maybe some sarcastic quotation marks would have helped the point! the "noble" cause if ya will ;)

funnily enough, i know what cancer is.

i'm not trying to disprove what you're saying, just adding some speculation to the conversation... what i said is still theoretically possible whether you think so or not, because it's a theory.... there could be something totally unknown to us that can cause such an advanced mutation.

do atoms not become different atoms when they gain mass?
Differences between hypothesis and theory. And then there's speculation or S.W.A.G.'s (sophisticated wild-ass guesses) :)

"Atoms never gain protons; they become positively charge only by losing electrons. ... Since neutrons are neutral, they don't affect the charge on an atom or ion. They do, however, have mass, and so affect the mass number. The number of neutrons that an atom can have in its nucleus is limited."
"Never gain, losing, limited". None of those terms sound like an improvement on the original.
 
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
592
Evolution deception? If two people get a child, you can see that the child has half the dna from both parents. If it's 2 blacks, they will get a black child. That's literally all there is to evolution. Neanderthals? We can compare neanderthal DNA with that of modern humans and trace it back by calculating the length of the neanderthal dna in modern humans, because each generation cuts it in half.
You can see evolution if you pair lions and tigers, and you get a liger. You can see evolution in horse breeding, dog breeding, plants we cultivate and so on. Evolution is all around you and very much real.

"If humans evolved from apes, how come apes still exist?"

If europeans evolved from africans, how come africans still exist? If you evolved from your parents, how come your brother still exists?

The answer is simple: You might both have the same ancestor but evolved divergently.

If your desire to look away from evolution is due to religious reasons, then you don't have to. Evolution does not disprove god, an intelligent creator or ancient aliens. It's simply a scientific fact like gravity. Everyone can feel gravity and everyone can see evolution
Can you please explain how my mother and brother have anything to do with what you are saying. I'll give you something, you have made me laugh! Had a good old chuckle at your comments. That mother / brother comment tipped me over the edge.

You are referring to micro evolution as I explained in the OP if you did read it. Micro evolution is all around us even in the plant kingdom. I am not referring to micro evolution but macro. We have a huge difference.

Not a single piece of evidence shows macro evolution is real. No matter how long modern psyence say it takes, no matter how many zeros they add on to the end - at one point, one species would have to give birth to a completely different species. This has never been observed, ever.

Darwin even admitted this had never been observed and simply hoped that future psyence would fill the voids he left.

If humans evolved from apes, how come apes still exist?

You are comparing humans existing via evolution to the specific race or creed of man?

Surely this is like comparing the existence of a dog through evolution to the specific breed or crossbreed of dog?

You are missing the point completely, read the OP all of your points have been addressed prior.

Your point on gravity holds no weight, everyone can feel "density" - you can't use something that isn't objectively true when speaking objectively. Your mathemagic will not pass with me.

Everyone feels gravity , everyone sees evolution? That's like saying everyone sees the sun, everyone sees evolution. They have no relation what so ever.
Post automatically merged:

Differences between hypothesis and theory. And then there's speculation or S.W.A.G.'s (sophisticated wild-ass guesses) :)

"Atoms never gain protons; they become positively charge only by losing electrons. ... Since neutrons are neutral, they don't affect the charge on an atom or ion. They do, however, have mass, and so affect the mass number. The number of neutrons that an atom can have in its nucleus is limited."
"Never gain, losing, limited". None of those terms sound like an improvement on the original.
Just playing devils advocate here, since atoms can't be actually "proven" what on earth are we? It seems our instruments will always develop, grow arms and legs but our perception will never be correct. Who knows where the limits of our natural world start and end ...

The more I have researched I hardly believe we are carbon life forms - sort sort of water based life makes a lot more sense.

TH
 
Last edited:

Worsaae

Active member
Messages
50
Reactions
109
" I'll give you something, you have made me laugh!"
Hehe :) I am glad to be of service!

The way I see it "Macroevolution" is just many small "microevolutions". Think of the color spectrum, if you increase/decrease the frequency slightly, the color didn't change, i.e. the color didn't evolve into a new color. It's still green or whatever. If you keep increasing/decrease slightly a million times, you'll end up with a new color from where you started. Suddenly green turned red! Even though each step of the way, the color-change was only "microevolution". In the end your green species will have turned into a red species.

"If humans evolved from apes, how come apes still exist? "

If say you have 100 green and they get seperated into 2 groups. Then after a million years (many small changes), one group might be red and the other might be blue. Here blue represents chimps and red represents humans, and green represents our common ancestor. Then someone red can ask "Why does blue still exist if we evolved from green?" and the answer would be that the question doesn't make much sense, because apes don't evolve into humans. Apes give birth to apes that are slightly more human-like until they're human. Those apes also gave birth to apes that were slightly more chimpansee-like until they are chimpansees. Green doesn't evolve into red or blue. Green gives birth to a slightly "less green/more red" green until it's no longer green and only red.
 

ScottFreeman

Well-known member
Messages
124
Reactions
455
Think of the color spectrum, if you increase/decrease the frequency slightly, the color didn't change, i.e. the color didn't evolve into a new color. It's still green or whatever. If you keep increasing/decrease slightly a million times, you'll end up with a new color from where you started. Suddenly green turned red! Even though each step of the way, the color-change was only "microevolution". In the end your green species will have turned into a red species.
You're right there so let's use that example. As the frequency changes the color doesn't 'evolve' into anything new. It stayed a color. It did not change into iron or salt water or wind. It's still a color in a spectrum (whether red or blue or green). That's not evolution or even micro anything other than variations of colors in a spectrum, variations of birds beaks in isolation, variations in skin color etc. You can breed for variation. You can pick horses with large hearts in the hopes of that trait expressing into a good runner but it's still a horse. You don't breed millions of horses hoping small changes over time will give it wings and feathers. Again, variation in a species.

In another example. I have an automobile plant with programmed machines responsible for small changes in decoration of my models to make them suit the needs of the customers (air conditioning in hot areas, big tires for mud etc). No matter how many customers request all sorts of changes over decades and decades and millions of cars, the plant won't hiccup and spit out a submarine. (Yes, I know. Man-made example. The point is that the system just isn't tooled that way and neither is nature).

Another. We find a beach animal that eats fish in the shallows. It's feet develop a webbing between the toes to catch prey and move faster. At this point it is still the same species, just varied from its inland brethren. Using your 'micro-evolution theory' let's continue with his evolution. Now he spends more time underwater and develops larger lungs than his cousins...still the same species. But, there are no small changes that can turn lungs into gills...or the other way around either.

In my opinion, you are hoping for the same thing Darwin was, that we'll surely find, in the first 100ft of soil all over the world, millions of examples of 'in-between/developmental' versions of species showing small changes over time (if your example were true). We're still waiting.
 

Worsaae

Active member
Messages
50
Reactions
109
In my abstract example a color represents a distinct species. Red is strictly different from Green. Your beach animal isn't a new species (yet) because it didn't go from green to red yet. It's only on the way to become different.

You can call it variation if you want. Humans are not different from apes then. We're only a variation of primates and we've developed bigger brains, slightly different hands, spinalcord etc. but we're not really a new species. Just variations of the same "Blue print" if you like
 

Andromeda

Well-known member
Messages
162
Reactions
335
I tend to think like whitewave here

I honestly see no evidence in which humans are sprung from apes

It is more likely humans are sprung from the stars and galaxies because our biological ingredients can be found in the stars

Now I don't have any instruments to actually see that; we've been told that by media that our body is woven of ingredients that can be found in the stars

:)
 

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
164
Reactions
775
There are FAR, FAR more differences between human beings and apes. Way more than you're acknowledging. In fact, one of the largest issues is the fact we cannot cross breed without heavy genetic manipulation, as we have fewer chromosomes than our 'primate brethren'. As Scott just said, you're hoping to see and point out a variation that points back to the common ancestor and we're STILL waiting. No matter how many times they've tried to make a square peg of a skeleton fit the 'model' it has been proven to be wrong for the round hole of how nature works. Macro evolution has no solid basis in science, and Darwin himself admitted it.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,329
It is more likely humans are sprung from the stars and galaxies because our biological ingredients can be found in the stars
Now I don't have any instruments to actually see that; we've been told that by media that our body is woven of ingredients that can be found in the stars
:)
Are we made of Earth dust or stardust? A teaspoon of neutron star material would weigh about 10 million tons. :)
 

Worsaae

Active member
Messages
50
Reactions
109
It sounds to me like you're saying that we can't move from green to red with many many small steps because there is some "blue print barrier/wall" but has such a wall ever been proven? To me it seems obvious that lots of microevolution results in macroevolution but i'm totally open to different ideas. I think evolution is a pretty cool concept and it might be more complex in reality. Kind of like how the theory of relativity expanded on Newtonian gravity. Evolution might just be an "ignorant" view so to say
But then again, evolution does not contradict religion, alien origin or other theories. It's simply a great theory to explain how genetics work
 

ScottFreeman

Well-known member
Messages
124
Reactions
455
It sounds to me like you're saying that we can't move from green to red with many many small steps because there is some "blue print barrier/wall" but has such a wall ever been proven? To me it seems obvious that lots of microevolution results in macroevolution but i'm totally open to different ideas. I think evolution is a pretty cool concept and it might be more complex in reality. Kind of like how the theory of relativity expanded on Newtonian gravity. Evolution might just be an "ignorant" view so to say
But then again, evolution does not contradict religion, alien origin or other theories. It's simply a great theory to explain how genetics work
I have to applaud your being out there looking for answers. Personally, I had to have the rug pulled out from under some of my established beliefs before I could recognize that there even was a rug under others. Now, when I see things that don't fit like cracks in a wall or a loose thread, I poke at them and pull on the threads. Sometimes I think I should have plastered over the cracks and cut the ends off the loose threads to make everything look neat...but I wasn't built that way.
Post automatically merged:

I am also 0 negative blood, meaning I don't have the monkey gene. Does this mean I evolved from something else? Haha

TH
Quick, see if he (or she) floats! ;)
 
Last edited:
Top