Luchito vs evolution

[DaveC426913]

Well, actually I don't do theories, I test, I compare data, I follow evidence and connect the dots.


Face it, we don't need such an ambiguous inheritance anymore. We mus grow in accord to new discoveries and knowledge. Evolutionists are way behind of the new advances in science because they want to relate nature to an obsolete theory.

So far, what we're seeing from you is all sizzle and no bacon.

What "tests" have you done and what "data" have you gathered that refute the evolutionary evidence that humans evolved from the same proto-primate creature as the other apes? And a million other connections.

Because these "obsolete" scientists have mapped the genomes. Have you?

 

[billvon]

Well, actually I don't do theories, I test, I compare data, I follow evidence and connect the dots.

In the other thread you admitted you could not test anything - and in fact were unable to.

Evolutionists are way behind of the new advances in science because they want to relate nature to an obsolete theory.

You are way behind evolutionary science. For example, you didn't know any of the issues with epigenetics we mentioned above until you were spoon-fed them. Even now I suspect you don't understand them.

 

[Luchito]

In the other thread you admitted you could not test anything - and in fact were unable to.

I guess you are confused. I won't say I can't test anything; I have performed tests.

On the other hand, and the following is common in science.

A scientist makes an experiment and obtains results and have his conclusions.

Other scientists don't need to perform the same experiments but can review the performed one and find other conclusions.

With current tests and observations, the conclusions made by many biologists are based on evolutionary processes where no single observation backs up such conclusions.

Their minds are brainwashed to only point and justify an evolutionary process. You tell them, no the name of this event is "such and such", their answer always will be, "but, that is what evolution is about". Closed minds.

How hard is for them to accept that their theory is full of flaws. You take the former horse with the current one. When you analyze and compare both, you find out that the former horse enjoyed more physical and functional characteristics than the current one, this is to say, from more complex to simpler. That is not evolution but degeneration.

Your answer will be, "but degeneration is part of evolution".

You are dead wrong, Let's take another one, extinction is not part of evolution process as well, is dead or disappearance of a species, and is common in nature. Then, the theory of yours sucks, because does not cover and less realize that nature doesn't work in accord with that theory.

The theory of evolution can't predict sh*t. Tell me your prediction of humans 10,000 years from now. Oh, I think I know, will be "supermen" like loony Hawking "predicted", right?

Come on, wake up to reality, the theory of evolution became obsolete long ago, even before you were born, but loonies have carried its mummy throughout centuries as if it was a living theory, but it's only a masquerade, inside that body is only sand, and over its cloth covering is only dust.

You might babble a lot if you want to, but there is no evolution of the species in nature, that is not the main rule in nature, the theory of evolution was invented in base of imaginary events, was born in the mind of philosophers, and these philosophers were practically loony.

 

[Luchito]

So far, what we're seeing from you is all sizzle and no bacon.

What "tests" have you done and what "data" have you gathered that refute the evolutionary evidence that humans evolved from the same proto-primate creature as the other apes? And a million other connections.

Because these "obsolete" scientists have mapped the genomes. Have you?

I have reviewed chromosome data from different samples, and nothing, absolutely nothing implies humans as evolved from a primeval species from which apes are also assumed to "evolve".

The whole idea of that event is lunacies.

You called "connections" to genome similarities between species because you ignore the process of life on earth.

The solution leans on the genesis, the root, the primeval sources, you lack of that understanding, then you won't find the right answer. By the way, as evolution theory was invented when ignorance was the queen and scientists the servants, no wonder that up to until today this theory of yours keep failing one after another step.

 

[billvon]

I guess you are confused. I won't say I can't test anything; I have performed tests.

So post a screenshot of the test you ran with an oscilloscope to prove that the time axis doesn't exist.

 

[billvon]

I have reviewed chromosome data from different samples, and nothing, absolutely nothing implies humans as evolved from a primeval species from which apes are also assumed to "evolve".

They share more than 98% of the exact same genetic material, and the molecular clocks within both human and chimpanzee mtDNA were in sync between 5.5 and 6.3 million years ago - indicating that they shared an ancestor back then.

 

[James R]

I was in the middle of a debate challenging silly evolutionists how it comes micro-organisms became macro-organisms.

It was laughable all their answers.

What were their answers?

Darwin inherited his ideas from the common acceptance of an evolutionary process, a process that included the idea that humans are descendants of apes.

You should have spent a little money to learn some history. How much did you say you spent on learning science? Oh, that's right: you didn't say.

The theory of evolution was born without single scientific evidence but philosophy alone.

You are factually incorrect, again. Do yourself a favor. Get an education.

By the way, if today the new doctrines of the evolution theory say that humans are not descendants of apes, then such is a new theory...

They do not, so no need to worry yourself about that.

If you say species evolve, then I will look for evidence.

I say species evolve. Go look for the evidence!

Evolution theory was born from philosophical thoughts from people who like Einstein, imagined a lot but had no knowledge about nature.

Wrong again. Einstein made no contributions to evolutionary theory.

See what happens when you talk out of your arse? Just wrong wrong wrong, all the time.

 

[James R]

I have reviewed chromosome data from different samples, and nothing, absolutely nothing implies humans as evolved from a primeval species from which apes are also assumed to "evolve".

What equipment did you use? In which lab did you do the work? Who were your collaborators? Where are your results published?

I'm calling bullshit on your claim.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have reviewed chromosome data from different samples, and nothing, absolutely nothing implies humans as evolved from a primeval species from which apes are also assumed to "evolve".

And you are a geneticist are you?

The whole idea of that event is lunacies.

You talk in hyperbole a lot. It is vacuous.

You called "connections" to genome similarities between species because you ignore the process of life on earth.
The solution leans on the genesis, the root, the primeval sources, you lack of that understanding, then you won't find the right answer. By the way, as evolution theory was invented when ignorance was the queen and scientists the servants, no wonder that up to until today this theory of yours keep failing one after another step.

This is straight up vacuous rhetoric. It contains no discussion about facts or problems with evolution at all.

This is a science forum. We care about facts, not hand-waving theatrics.

You are 100% sizzle and zero bacon.


Could you do us all a favour? When you're done with all the ranting monologue, and if you still actually want to discuss any science or facts or anything like that, could you let us all know? Maybe change font colour so we can just scan the pages for it.

 

[James R]

You talk in hyperbole a lot. It is vacuous.

I'm just ignoring those bits. It saves a lot of time. Most of Luchito's content consists of vacuous claims and unsupported opinions.

 

[Luchito]

So far, what we're seeing from you is all sizzle and no bacon.

What "tests" have you done and what "data" have you gathered that refute the evolutionary evidence that humans evolved from the same proto-primate creature as the other apes? And a million other connections.

Because these "obsolete" scientists have mapped the genomes. Have you?

Oh my, oh my.

The Luchito vs Science couldn't help you come out unscathed. One of your soldiers betrayed the battalion giving me the reason that atomic clocks are affected by changes in their environment. Relativity ended exposed as not necessary and that is unable to provide its formulas and equations written in paper as valid explanation of the behavior of atomic clocks in space.

Now....

Now it is a new "debate"? Luchito vs evolution?

You know my style, I don't waste words discussing the finished floors of the building, the beautiful and super insulated windows, less about the paint color of offices, and similar.

If you want to debate evolution, it must start from the root.

Try to understand something, if the root (base foundation) exists, and is strong, then the building can be considered sound and worthy for construction.

But if the root (base foundation) doesn't exist or it's weak, then no matter the quality of the materials used in the construction, the building will be condemned.

To start, the theory of evolution lacks solid foundation. I, in my position of scientist's inspector, condemn this theory and just hanged the red sticker warning not to occupy the building.

But you want to argue about the windows and quality of the paint (genome maps, etc.)

For what? your theory has been condemned. What is the fuss?

Look, the genome maps are like geographic maps. The genome maps show "locations" only, they don't show lineage. If somebody told you they do, sorry to tell you that somebody has made you idiot.

Evolutionists invent anything in order to make their obsolete theory as something valid.

Check from where those so-called scientists have pulled their samples, and how they put them in "chronological" order.

So here we go, what method they used to put those genome maps in chronological order? Is that method 100% accurate? How can you prove the accuracy of that method?

As you can see, this is not a discussion taking for granted everything but totally the contrary, it is to investigate everything. Any failure will discard your position and end of your story. No mercy.

I have spent years in this, and you won't beat me just checking with Google what to reply next. Come on.

 

[James R]

What was the point of your post #31, Luchito? It contained no useful content. Just more empty claims and opinions.

Is that all you've got?

 

[(Q)]

Oh my, oh my.

The Luchito vs Science couldn't help you come out unscathed. One of your soldiers betrayed the battalion giving me the reason that atomic clocks are affected by changes in their environment. Relativity ended exposed as not necessary and that is unable to provide its formulas and equations written in paper as valid explanation of the behavior of atomic clocks in space.

Uh no, you have not done anything in that thread that doesn't make you look the ignorant fool.

Now....

Now it is a new "debate"? Luchito vs evolution?

Yet, another thread that makes you look the ignorant fool.

Check from where those so-called scientists have pulled their samples, and how they put them in "chronological" order.

So here we go, what method they used to put those genome maps in chronological order? Is that method 100% accurate? How can you prove the accuracy of that method?

I have spent years in this, and you won't beat me just checking with Google what to reply next. Come on.

Years? That's an obvious lie. You don't even know the methods used or if they're accurate.

 

[billvon]

What was the point of your post #31, Luchito?

A true Gish Gallop!

 

[Pinball1970]

I have reviewed chromosome data from different samples, and nothing

Really? What is your take on ERVs?