Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[abu afak]

Says the guy who just googled it.

Why would you make such a statement/claim without checking/searching the board first?
This shows you are not only hostile but STUPID.
You, a one line imp, complains about intellect?

In fact, I have used 'Punctuated Equilibrium' MANY times at least as far back as 2013... ELEVEN YEARS Ago!!

Search results for query: punctuated

www.usmessageboard.com

You 12 IQ a$$hole! why didn't you check first?

`

 

[ding]

Why would you make such a statement/claim without checking/searching the board first?
This shows you are not only hostile but STUPID.
You, a one line imp, complains about intellect?

In fact, I have used 'Punctuated Equilibrium' MANY times at least as far back as 2013... ELEVEN YEARS Ago!!

Search results for query: punctuated

www.usmessageboard.com

You 12 IQ a$$hole! why didn't you check first?

`

Because you were the one who first accused me of not knowing what it was, dummy.

 

[ding]

Can they grow? Can they divide? If so, they are, in my book, living.

So the first living thing wasn't a cell? The first living thing was a component of a cell? Do you have a link for that per chance?

 

[ding]

Seems to me a critical component of living things and evolution is the ability to reproduce and pass down genetic information. So I would be very interested to understand how pre-life cell components which supposedly evolved, reproduced and passed down genetic information so that evolution could occur.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Humans vary in appearance more than fruit flies from generation to generation, yet there is no evidence of evolution.

But fruit flies do evolve. There are many different species of fruit flies.

Drosophilidae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Subfamily Drosophilinae Rondani, 1856:
  • Tribe Colocasiomyini Okada, 1989:
    • Genus Baeodrosophila Wheeler & Takada, 1964
    • Genus Balara Bock, 1982
    • Genus Chymomyza Czerny, 1903
    • Genus Colocasiomyia de Meijere, 1914
    • Genus Lissocephala Malloch, 1929
    • Genus Neotanygastrella Duda, 1925
    • Genus Phorticella Duda, 1924
    • Genus Scaptodrosophila Duda, 1923
    • Genus Protochymomyza Grimaldi, 1987
  • Tribe Drosophilini Okada, 1989:
    • Genus Arengomyia Yafuso & Toda, 2008
    • Genus Bialba Bock, 1989
    • Genus Calodrosophila Wheeler & Takada, 1964
    • Genus Celidosoma Hardy, 1965
    • Genus Collessia Bock, 1982
    • Genus Dettopsomyia Lamb, 1914
    • Genus Dichaetophora Duda, 1940
    • Genus Dicladochaeta Malloch, 1932
    • Genus Drosophila Fallén, 1823
    • Genus Hirtodrosophila Duda, 1923
    • Genus Hypselothyrea Okada, 1956
    • Genus Idiomyia Grimshaw, 1901 (Hawaiian Drosophila)
    • Genus Jeannelopsis Séguy, 1938
    • Genus Laccodrosophila Duda, 1927
    • Genus Liodrosophila Duda, 1922
    • Genus Lordiphosa Basden, 1961
    • Genus Microdrosophila Malloch, 1921
    • Genus Miomyia Grimaldi, 1987
    • Genus Mulgravea Bock, 1982
    • Genus Mycodrosophila Oldenberg, 1914
    • Genus Palmomyia Grimaldi, 2003
    • Genus Paraliodrosophila Duda, 1925
    • Genus Paramycodrosophila Duda, 1924
    • Genus Poliocephala Bock, 1989
    • Genus Samoaia Malloch, 1934
    • Genus Scaptomyza Hardy, 1849
    • Genus Sphaerogastrella Duda, 1922
    • Genus Styloptera Duda, 1924
    • Genus Tambourella Wheeler, 1957
    • Genus Zaprionus Coquillett, 1902
    • Genus Zaropunis Tsacas, 1990
    • Genus Zapriothrica Wheeler, 1956
    • Genus Zygothrica Wiedemann, 1830
  • Incertae sedis:
    • Genus Marquesia Malloch, 1932
• Subfamily Steganinae Hendel, 1917:
  • Tribe Gitonini Grimaldi, 1990:
    • Genus Allopygaea Tsacas, 2000
    • Genus Acletoxenus Frauenfeld, 1868
    • Genus Amiota Loew, 1862
    • Genus Apenthecia Tsacas, 1983
    • Genus Apsiphortica Okada, 1971
    • Genus Cacoxenus Loew, 1858
    • Genus Crincosia Bock, 1982
    • Genus Electrophortica Hennig, 1965
    • Genus Erima Kertész, 1899
    • Genus Gitona Meigen, 1830
    • Genus Hyalistata Wheeler, 1960
    • Genus Luzonimyia Malloch, 1926
    • Genus Mayagueza Wheeler, 1960
    • Genus Paracacoxenus Hardy & Wheeler, 1960
    • Genus Paraleucophenga Hendel, 1914
    • Genus Paraphortica Duda, 1934
    • Genus Phortica Schiner, 1862
    • Genus Pseudiastata Coquillett, 1901
    • Genus Pseudocacoxenus Duda, 1925
    • Genus Rhinoleucophenga Hendel, 1917
    • Genus Soederbomia Hendel, 1938
    • Genus Trachyleucophenga Hendel, 1917
  • Tribe Steganini Okada, 1989:
    • Genus Eostegana Hendel, 1913
    • Genus Leucophenga Mik, 1866
    • Genus Pararhinoleucophenga Duda, 1924
    • Genus Parastegana Okada, 1971
    • Genus Pseudostegana Okada, 1978
    • Genus Stegana Meigen, 1830
  • Incertae sedis:
    • Genus Neorhinoleucophenga Duda, 1924
    • Genus Pyrgometopa Kertész, 1901

 

[ding]

Can they divide?

Are you assuming that pre-cell components divide or can you provide a link for that. Because it seems to me that you are claiming reproduction and I am thinking you may have made that leap on your own and have no supporting documentation to back that up. Am I right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It must be understood that these kinds of experiments involve human intelligence, the experiments are guided by humans, how to show that the same result would arise without human involvement?

Because we can see many different fruit flies

Also we can see ancient genes of fruit flies

Scientists create fruit flies with ancient genes - UChicago Medicine

Scientists at NYU and UChicago have created fruit flies carrying reconstructed ancient genes to reveal how ancient mutations drove major evolutionary changes.

www.uchicagomedicine.org

"Scientists create flies with ancient genes to study the evolution of embryonic development"

"Scientists at New York University and the University of Chicago have created fruit flies carrying reconstructed ancient genes to reveal how ancient mutations drove major evolutionary changes in embryonic development—the impact of which we see today."

You can't have ancient genes without evolution.

 

[ding]

We know evolution exists, we can literally see it happening in fruit flies....

Evolution of an existing species, right? The number of chromosomes isn't changing, right?

How about the origin of a new species? Let's take humans for instance with a different number of chromosomes. How does slight successive changes lead to a species with a different number of chromosomes?

 

[scruffy]

So why try to create life in the laboratory?

You don't "create" life.

You assemble it.

What is the weirdo fascination with "creating" life?

You can create a life "form", but you can't create life.

 

[scruffy]

Yes I've often heard that but I beg to differ. Evolution cannot take place until we have cells and cells require proteins but proteins are always mechanically assembled (by ribosomes using DNA (mRNA) to direct the synthesis) that assembly process is done inside cells though.

So life can only come from life, this is the most established law in biology the law of biogenesis. The evidence for that law far exceeds the evidence for evolution yet biologists claim its not really a law, that cells can arise without another cell existing first.

To decouple the two is insincere IMHO, evolution requires cells and cells are extremely complex nano-machines that cannot come from anything other than another cell.

Your logic is faulty.

Mine works a lot better.

Everything is alive. Your observations are only magnitudes of complexity.

If you begin with the assumption that photons are alive, things start making better sense.

It is a fact that 14 years ago scientists in San Diego assembled a living cell from inert components.

 

[Toro]

A splendid narrative based on the worldwide conviction by all viewers that the granite monolith found on earth's moon did not "evolve" or create itself:

2001PRINCIPLE.NET

One of my websites: Mathematical Proof of Nature's God

 

[Woodznutz]

But fruit flies do evolve. There are many different species of fruit flies.

Drosophilidae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Subfamily Drosophilinae Rondani, 1856:
  • Tribe Colocasiomyini Okada, 1989:
    • Genus Baeodrosophila Wheeler & Takada, 1964
    • Genus Balara Bock, 1982
    • Genus Chymomyza Czerny, 1903
    • Genus Colocasiomyia de Meijere, 1914
    • Genus Lissocephala Malloch, 1929
    • Genus Neotanygastrella Duda, 1925
    • Genus Phorticella Duda, 1924
    • Genus Scaptodrosophila Duda, 1923
    • Genus Protochymomyza Grimaldi, 1987
  • Tribe Drosophilini Okada, 1989:
    • Genus Arengomyia Yafuso & Toda, 2008
    • Genus Bialba Bock, 1989
    • Genus Calodrosophila Wheeler & Takada, 1964
    • Genus Celidosoma Hardy, 1965
    • Genus Collessia Bock, 1982
    • Genus Dettopsomyia Lamb, 1914
    • Genus Dichaetophora Duda, 1940
    • Genus Dicladochaeta Malloch, 1932
    • Genus Drosophila Fallén, 1823
    • Genus Hirtodrosophila Duda, 1923
    • Genus Hypselothyrea Okada, 1956
    • Genus Idiomyia Grimshaw, 1901 (Hawaiian Drosophila)
    • Genus Jeannelopsis Séguy, 1938
    • Genus Laccodrosophila Duda, 1927
    • Genus Liodrosophila Duda, 1922
    • Genus Lordiphosa Basden, 1961
    • Genus Microdrosophila Malloch, 1921
    • Genus Miomyia Grimaldi, 1987
    • Genus Mulgravea Bock, 1982
    • Genus Mycodrosophila Oldenberg, 1914
    • Genus Palmomyia Grimaldi, 2003
    • Genus Paraliodrosophila Duda, 1925
    • Genus Paramycodrosophila Duda, 1924
    • Genus Poliocephala Bock, 1989
    • Genus Samoaia Malloch, 1934
    • Genus Scaptomyza Hardy, 1849
    • Genus Sphaerogastrella Duda, 1922
    • Genus Styloptera Duda, 1924
    • Genus Tambourella Wheeler, 1957
    • Genus Zaprionus Coquillett, 1902
    • Genus Zaropunis Tsacas, 1990
    • Genus Zapriothrica Wheeler, 1956
    • Genus Zygothrica Wiedemann, 1830
  • Incertae sedis:
    • Genus Marquesia Malloch, 1932
• Subfamily Steganinae Hendel, 1917:
  • Tribe Gitonini Grimaldi, 1990:
    • Genus Allopygaea Tsacas, 2000
    • Genus Acletoxenus Frauenfeld, 1868
    • Genus Amiota Loew, 1862
    • Genus Apenthecia Tsacas, 1983
    • Genus Apsiphortica Okada, 1971
    • Genus Cacoxenus Loew, 1858
    • Genus Crincosia Bock, 1982
    • Genus Electrophortica Hennig, 1965
    • Genus Erima Kertész, 1899
    • Genus Gitona Meigen, 1830
    • Genus Hyalistata Wheeler, 1960
    • Genus Luzonimyia Malloch, 1926
    • Genus Mayagueza Wheeler, 1960
    • Genus Paracacoxenus Hardy & Wheeler, 1960
    • Genus Paraleucophenga Hendel, 1914
    • Genus Paraphortica Duda, 1934
    • Genus Phortica Schiner, 1862
    • Genus Pseudiastata Coquillett, 1901
    • Genus Pseudocacoxenus Duda, 1925
    • Genus Rhinoleucophenga Hendel, 1917
    • Genus Soederbomia Hendel, 1938
    • Genus Trachyleucophenga Hendel, 1917
  • Tribe Steganini Okada, 1989:
    • Genus Eostegana Hendel, 1913
    • Genus Leucophenga Mik, 1866
    • Genus Pararhinoleucophenga Duda, 1924
    • Genus Parastegana Okada, 1971
    • Genus Pseudostegana Okada, 1978
    • Genus Stegana Meigen, 1830
  • Incertae sedis:
    • Genus Neorhinoleucophenga Duda, 1924
    • Genus Pyrgometopa Kertész, 1901

I'm overwhelmed.

 

[Woodznutz]

What is the weirdo fascination with "creating" life?

Scientists do some weird things.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A brilliant man I'm sure but he makes a fundamental mistake, one so obvious that even I can see it. If I can see it I wonder why he doesn't. Because he doesn't want to maybe?
At 10:00 he claims that evolution starts with a cell. Obviously false since the first cells were almost certainly the product of several billion years of evolution. Almost the end, not the beginning. To be subject to evolution, something must only be able to grow and reproduce. There are plenty of simple inorganic molecules that can do that.

Evolution involves random mutations to DNA; no cells, no DNA.

 

[Woodznutz]

At some point the odds against something render it impossible, so it is with evolution.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your logic is faulty.

Mine works a lot better.

Everything is alive. Your observations are only magnitudes of complexity.

If you begin with the assumption that photons are alive, things start making better sense.

It is a fact that 14 years ago scientists in San Diego assembled a living cell from inert components.

So nothing is dead, right, that's a ground breaking discovery, I'm sure lots of grieving relatives will be elated to hear this. Of course biologists have a definition for "life" I suggest you go and read it.

 

[scruffy]

So nothing is dead, right, that's a ground breaking discovery, I'm sure lots of grieving relatives will be elated to hear this. Of course biologists have a definition for "life" I suggest you go and read it.

Way ahead of you.

There's no reason to be stuck in the last century.

Unless it makes you feel comfortable somehow.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Way ahead of you.

If the rate of posting inanities is the metric, then yes I agree, you're a master of the craft.

There's no reason to be stuck in the last century.

Why? what's changed with respect to "alive"? people were alive last century and people are alive today.

Unless it makes you feel comfortable somehow.

If "alive" is a characteristic shared by everything that exists then the term has no meaning, your assertion is a vacuity. If it has a meaning then please state your definition of "alive", will you do that? actually state a definition?

There's a profound difference between a dead person and an alive person, I should have thought this was obvious, maybe after you die you can come back here and post an update for us.

(you could try a trick like defining "alive" to be the opposite of "dead", I wonder if you'd stoop that low though)

 

[scruffy]

If the rate of posting inanities is the metric, then yes I agree, you're a master of the craft.

Why? what's changed with respect to "alive"? people were alive last century and people are alive today.

If "alive" is a characteristic shared by everything that exists then the term has no meaning, your assertion is a vacuity. If it has a meaning then please state your definition of "alive", will you do that? actually state a definition?

There's a profound difference between a dead person and an alive person, I should have thought this was obvious, maybe after you die you can come back here and post an update for us.

(you could try a trick like defining "alive" to be the opposite of "dead", I wonder if you'd stoop that low though)

The problem with your thinking is you can't define life. You don't know what it is.

You're like a guy trying to understand gravity without Newton.

"The apple always falls DOWN".

Well no, it doesn't.

Same for life. You have a vague intuitive understanding of your observations, just like the guy looking at the apple.

 

[alang1216]

"THOUGHT TO HAVE"

since theres no proof of it and they are basing it on assumptions I wouldnt put much into it,,
just another evo fantasy,,

No, an assumption would be to presume the 'THOUGHT' is not based on the best available evidence. A fantasy would be there should be proof of evolution but no proof of creationism is necessary.