Do you believe in evolution?

believe in evolution?

  • yes i do

  • no, i dont


Results are only viewable after voting.
Evolution doesn't say that a rat became "horse,monkey, human, lion, wolf, rabbit and bear". You're legit portraying it like a Pokémon-esque evolution.

Beneficial mutations exist and you can find many of them in current humans (barely existed for 200 thousand years), let alone other animals throughout hundreds of millions of years of change.

"Where those links inbetween mutation 1 and mutation 99?" is only bullshit mentioned by people who don't understand how evolution works. The issue with your fallacy is that, the moment someone showed you a supposed link between species 1 and species 3 in species 2, you'd be demanding where's species 1.5; and the moment you were shown species 1.5 you'd demand species 1.25; and so on. Because, again, you think between Charmander and Charizar there was a Charmeleon once.
Stop putting your own agenda as rule, ok?

Let's see what means evolution:

Biological evolution (from Latin evolutio — "expansion") — a natural process of the development of living nature, accompanied by a change in the genetic composition of populations, the formation of adaptations, the speciation and extinction of species, the transformation of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.

Now, evolution doesn't mean something like pokemon, which is clear truth.
But because of your ignorance, you may believe that there is not much difference between a cat and a dog, even though they are completely different types of animals. And this is not about Pokemon, but about the real world.

I said that mutations are both good and bad. I will not go into the depths of human mutations because genetics is not a science that can determine the date and time when a certain change occurred.

Therefore, let's dwell on the issue that you raised: the existence of transitional links that evolve into something else. So, I will explain to those who do not understand: the Cro-Magnon was initially considered a transitional link, until they found evidence that the Cro-Magnon is no different from a modern person. The reason why the Cro-Magnon is depicted as an ape in the books for stupid people is that it is customary to believe in evolution. And if you take an orangutan, the ignorant will not notice too much difference between them and a person, hence the belief that people descended from a monkey came from. But the devil is in the details. The difference between an orangutan and a human is enormous.

However, I'm not talking here only about people, I'm talking about animals: there is no transitional link between species, or it has not been found. And evolution claims that such must exist. Moreover, due to the fact that only some mutations can be positive, there must be hundreds of thousands of subspecies that disappeared without completing their evolution. Animals cannot take and turn into something else. Believe it or not, each animal has its own mechanisms, its own system of behavior, its own instincts. Mutations are not selective - they are always spontaneous. At the same time, each animal is a complex living organism that does not need anything. Evolution says that due to poor conditions, animals can change completely, which implies the existence of transitional links and incomplete mutations. And there is no such thing.

In summary, evolution is the belief that all life on earth was formed from a rat. There is no evidence for this.

And don't call other people dumb when you post this.
I will call people fools that they themselves do not know what they are talking about.
 
Read this
https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/e...ommon-ancestry-provedTheobald/992410358980192

"Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences."

This is authored by
Masami Hasegawa

They dont deny evolution at all or UCA but just debating methods
Ofc who said they deny evolution lol. And exaclty, hes debating the method, the current "formal" method, which is none other than UCA. The title is enough to make everyone without bias understand lol
 
Why would they explicitly state that human and apes share different ancestor if even the most basic lives are still being studied on. Things take process, but one thing for sure: If the UCA turns out to be wrong in the future, then there will be no certainty that human and chimp share common ancestry.
massive reach lmfao. and still, the research you cite yourself is not supporting your claim but rather contradicting this shit. with one of the scientists legit studying when the human-ape split happened. get over it, humans are animals, mammals, primates, great apes and so on.
Post automatically merged:

You are no different than the blind evangelicals lmao, like to prejudice and not read the point carefully
ive read it carefully, and your point sucks and is not supported by the data you cite. and obviously the one who thinks its great that science as a method is self-improving and our understanding of the natural world can evolve over time (pun intended) is "no different than the blind evangelicals".

yeah right.
 
More evidence for it than other alternative explanations
not a question of "belief" , would be more apt to use that to refer to other perhaps mythological explanations for our existence cause many of those dont rely on much evidence.
 
No they were saying no molecular studies that proved it.
6 years later this happened and answered him and proved the UCA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095482/
Exactly, UCA has always been relying on qualitative studies based on DNA similarity as well as anatomical similarity. It obviously need more work especially quantitatively as argued by the scientists themselves. When it is tested quantitatively, they found out that there might be flaws in the current model.

According to the Abstract of the reference you cited, it looks like another qualitative based study. It confirms nothing.


massive reach lmfao. and still, the research you cite yourself is not supporting your claim but rather contradicting this shit. with one of the scientists legit studying when the human-ape split happened. get over it, humans are animals, mammals, primates, great apes and so on.
Nah, youre just another moronic self claimed scientific atheists lmao.

First of all, i never said they supports my claim, but they open possibilities. Get your understanding straight.

Second, their interest is the credibility of the an age old tree of life, the UCA model, not straight up the ancestry of human and chimp. Besides, even if you want to confirm the ancestry of human and chimp, you'll have to start from the basic level, which the single cell organisms, which is what they are doing.

"Things take process, but one thing for sure: If the UCA turns out to be wrong in the future, then there will be no certainty that human and chimp share common ancestry."

I thought this reply of mine would get to your head, but it looks like you can't understand this really simple sentence lol. Not my fault you have this poor understanding
 
First of all, i never said they supports my claim, but they open possibilities. Get your understanding straight.
but they dont even do that. you have to stack reach upon reach upon reach to get to your claim from the research you cited.

humans are animals, get over it.

"Things take process, but one thing for sure: If the UCA turns out to be wrong in the future, then there will be no certainty that human and chimp share common ancestry."
if the best you can do is cite research thats looking into relation between eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea, fuck no.

you might actually want to read the science you cite before making ridiculous statements like that.
 
but they dont even do that. you have to stack reach upon reach upon reach to get to your claim from the research you cited.

humans are animals, get over it.


if the best you can do is cite research thats looking into relation between eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea, fuck no.

you might actually want to read the science you cite before making ridiculous statements like that.
Why are you so deaf lmao

They literally said there is no quantitative evidence of UCA. They literally said there possibilities of alternative models. They literally said it remains to be controversial among evolutionists about the UCA model. Youre the one arguing against these scientists

1. Based on quantitative study, there might be multiple ancestors, not just one.
2. If there are indeed multiple ancestors, then there will be no certainty human and chimp share the same ancestry
3. If human and chimp turns out to share different ancesty, then there is a possibility human have a unique ancestry

Now, tell me in which part of the thought process is wrong
 
They literally said there is no quantitative evidence of UCA. They literally said there possibilities of alternative models. They literally said it remains to be controversial among evolutionists about the UCA model. Youre the one arguing against these scientists
bro, its still about relation between eukaryotes and bacteria/archaea. there is nothing in this research you cited that questions eukaryotes not stemming from the same ancestor. much less even animals, mammals, primates and so on.

read the fucking science you are citing bro. this is pathetic really
 
bro, its still about relation between eukaryotes and bacteria/archaea. there is nothing in this research you cited that questions eukaryotes not stemming from the same ancestor. much less even animals, mammals, primates and so on.

read the fucking science you are citing bro. this is pathetic really
I did read that, youre just failing miserable to understand it

"
While the UCA hypothesis postulates that
eubacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes descended from a
single common ancestor called UCA, the independent origin
hypotheses include scenarios such as eubacteria having a
different origin from that of archaebacteria/eukaryotes or the
three domains have different origins from each other."

Can you read now Mr. Scientific Atheist?

And why dont you answer my question lol
 
The moment there's evolution, no matter the model we refine to explain it, the moment God didn't create every modern creature because every modern creature sustained evolutionary change at some point. Obviously I'm focusing on Abrahamic religions because we both know people here aren't praising Anu.

You put more emphasize on modern human; I couldn't care less because modern human isn't what the books put their emphasize on. And anyways, I'm pretty sure no future approach to evolution will find any strong support for humans not being primates.
"God does not exist coz evolution works on his creation too?"

What?!

Mate your statements are personal presuppositions and beliefs, not neutral logical arguments
Like

- God doesn't govern evolution

- underlying premise being Papa Ape theory

Hence god doesn't exist

"God didn't create every modern creature coz every modern creature sustained evolutionary changes"
What is your idea of God even We're talking about the initiator to the universe and you expect someone with that capability to not govern evolution, coz Papa Drawin theory? Tf?


You're acting salty and nit answering shit mate

Same ego is seen here:
Because every test we've done on evolution supports that it's driven by a semi-random process of some mutations happening and helping certain individuals to survive and/or breed more. The amount of stuff you have to find evidence for BEFORE even trying to defend the "intended design" position is already enough to put the burden of proof on you; for example, why you assume there's a creation to begin with, why you assume it's one creator, why you more than likely assume it's the creator you were randomly nurtured to believe in, and so on.

why you assume there's a creation to begin with, why you assume it's one creator, why you more than likely assume it's the creator you were randomly nurtured to believe in, and so on.
Sure I'll provide one cosmological one and an ontological one I'm reading a book on them but this what I'm able to devise atm

Cosmological irrc :
- Universe didn't come out of nothing and is finite and expanding meaning its a has beginning and an will have an end eventually . Imagine random a explosion in midst of absolute void created cosmic forces that molded random particles into bonds and conducive pairs (elements and compounds) that inturn created systematic galaxies and solar systems with perplexing dimension, aesthetics, attributes . Everything that came out of then explosion came out inanimate yet functioned in a very systematic planned order to construct the universe we see and processes we observe. The consistency.. And the precision where
TThe 'it came out of nothing' claim is absolutly ignorant and reduced calim

There is something that provided a role and character to everything that came out of "Nowhere" even an atom worth of difference and we wouldn't have existed

Again the premise is the provision of agency in disorder that
developed into the cosmos we know

Where did it come form.. And why is the universe popin out of no where


Second Argument which i pose is an apriori argument called the Burhan argument ie: the contingency argument posed by Ibn Sena :

Everything in the universe is contingent upon something to mainstain and sustain its existence and the universe itself is a contingent entity

A contingent entity has composed parts and the universe is comprised of parts just like a Human with Organs

Since the universe is contingent and finite what is it contingent upon to sustain the parts within . something that depends on something else (contingent) cannot cause itself as it is contingent or dependant

You cannot have infinitely contingent things as that's an infinite regress paradox that would mean the there is no starting Necessary entity where all the contingent things depend upon. Infinitely contingent things would mean Universe never began to begin with because if there are Infinitely dependent thing there is no one source that brings those dependent things into exitence

Its like you telling the first person in a queue of infinite people to pass on a message to the last person.. The message never reaches


That's why there should be something where it all stops and that is the initiator. The creator




Now, tell me in which part of the thought process is wrong
The part where you disagree with him regardless of all these bomb shells and him turning a blind eye to it.

UCA is plagued with assumptions based on observations
In under a minute it gets debunked
https://youtube.com/shorts/AH36SP5pwpg?feature=share
 
Last edited:
Top