reply to post by hypervalentiodine
No I missunderstood Pye, he was saying there were segments that didn't match anything we have seen before.
Speciation is nothing more than observed adaptation, which all though is claimed to be a part of evoution, is not. There is no basis that proves that
adaptation has anything to do with evolution.
Lateral gene transfer has no basis when the example is on bacteria, again adaptation is usless as proof of evolution.
Thats like saying bacteria adapted so I must have a common ancestor with apes.
Genetic revolutions founder affects and speciation. There is no proof that just because there are small changes, that more changes, much less
different changes would occur overtime, its all a guess. Most of these are even written in the context, that things are either assumed, or that it
appears as such, none of wich is a basis for proof.
sympatric speciation comes as no shock when I'm trying to prove that all species eat the same food within a species, however speciation has no basis
since it's nothing more than adaptation, and that is not proof I share a common ancestor with apes.
Morphilogical events don't prove evolution, of course I think of evolution as more of a super bug, or a creator, after all it is responsible for
creating over a billion species, which is by all definitions a creator. It would have to be a super bug in order to dodge our ability to identify it,
trace it, predict it, follow it, while it supposedly makes insane complex changes to our DNA in ways that for the most part, we are unable to do.
Evolution has no scientific value, its not predictable, its not recreatable, its not traceable, its not identifiable, it fails the litmus for
determining something is a scientific theory, at best its not even a theory, but a hypothesis.
Your mass links only prove how much something so simple can be overlooked, it's what scientists like to call PROOF. No one has ever witnessed
anything evolving, and they never will. Even in speciation, there is no proof that it can continue, much less to other genes, Evolution is a
fabrication of the mind where people have done a sloppy job at connecting a bunch of dots, thats not proof.
The bottom line is if evolution did work the way that a lot of people are led to believe in, our world would look a hell of a lot different than it
does right now. For starters, we would see a lot of slight variations within the same species, but what we actually see is the opposite, we see many
species that have a few things in common. We are missing way to many inbetween species to prove that evolution ever existed, and the failure rate of a
new species is not high enough to claim that only the stong survived, they are all basically healthy.
We are also lacking the oodles of fossils that would support that theory. I respect the fact that your trying to flood me into overload with
information, but that doesn't prove the theory right. Well it would if any of it seemed credible. No one is ever going to believe in evolution
unless there is proof. Those that have chosen to believe are doing so on a guess that it's real.
The diversity we see today does not prove evolution, there is always the possibility of creation, and we have historical books that are telling is
that is exactly how it happened. I have my own reservations on both sides but untill we are able to accuratly dismiss the history, its going to be
pretty hard to believe in something you can't prove.
.
