Luchito:
Again, the theory of evolution was born with the idea that today species come from inferior, simpler and worst state species. This is why it is called "evolution". Do you get it now?
I get that you don't understand the theory.
There's no ranking of species as "inferior" or "superior" in evolutionary theory. There's nothing intrinsic about an individual that makes it superior or inferior to another individual. From an evolutionary point of view, it can be better adapted to its environment, or not so well adapted. That's all.
Today this theory for to be accepted implies "evolution" means any change.
No. You have variation confused with evolution. Hint: one leads to the other.
Such claim is so stupid, because we don't need a theory of science telling you that species change in any way, any form, and so forth.
What's your explanation for how species change? Or do you believe that species don't change?
If a species got extincted, the theory says, "oh, that is evolution"... ha ha ha ha. A dumb theory.
I don't know where you're getting your information about what the theory says. Since it's so badly wrong, I would try to find a better source, if I were you.
MY THEORY, which I posted in 1999-2000 says species only degenerate. Period.
Then your theory is wrong. Period.
My theory has been proved thousands of times, and never fails.
Nonsense. You don't even have a theory. If you had one, you would have told us what it is.
You bluster and preen yourself and crow that you have evidence and your theories are proven and all that, but you're never able to provide a shred of an argument to support anything you say. Who do you think you're fooling?
Look, you are following the wrong path. To start, do you see wolves and rabbits in certain areas where snows in winter? Do they change the color of their skin? Do you think those two species have the capacity to "camouflage" in winter season by their own will, so they can hunt prey or escape from a predator?
Not "by their own will". Their camouflage is an evolutionary adaptation.
But why did you ignore my example of the insects, and the direct question I asked you, referring to that example?
Oh come one. Those two have not a single idea why their skin changes to white color and you too.
Wrong. Like I said, it's an evolutionary adaptation.
See? Now, I know why they change the color of their skin, and "camouflage" has nothing to do with such a change.
Another empty claim by you. If you knew, you'd tell us what you know. But you never manage to produce the goods. All you seem able to do is to make empty claims that you have them.
Your theory of evolution is a complete fiasco.
Did you forget that I told you that your attempts at disproof by ridicule are pointless? Why do you persist with that childish nonsense? It's because you have nothing else to offer, isn't it?
Look, mutations won't make you better adapted, such is a fallacy.
Not every time, but often enough for natural selection to take advantage of the beneficial ones.
Change of no change in the environment, if something triggers a mutation, your descendants just will be lucky to survive with the new modification in their bodies.
Depends whether it is a harmful, neutral or beneficial mutation. You really don't have a good grasp on this, do you?
We had several species same as the ones in the other continent crossing the Atlantic. The Spaniards weren't ignorant, they knew the difference between a tiger and a lion. They wrote there were lions in the discovered continent.
Then they were wrong. Maybe they mistook some other animal for a lion. What's the relevance of this?
And here in the American continent we had elephants, horses and more.
When? What's the relevance of this?
It happens that several species died long ago by a strong change in the environment. Only the bulls survived as buffalo. No genetic accident, but a simple luck that bulls assimilate 75% of what they eat while horses assimilate only 25%.
Please link me to the evidence that supports this. What era are you talking about? Are you trying to explain why, at some point in time, there were no horses in the Americas? You're saying they were there, and then they died out, or something?
Many species which die because human presence is not because they are not better adapted, it could be thousands of reasons why they will get extincted, and adaptation will have nothing to do with, same as the surviving species.
Correct. And so...?
For a moment, wear my shoes and walk freely rejecting the theory of evolution. Just for a moment. Remember that such theory was idealized centuries ago, when science was in diapers.
On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
Example, the species had a mouth before and changed to a species without mouth, eyes, ears and legs, and you say: "Do you see? that species evolved".
Well, maybe, although that particular example sounds completely invented. But so what? "Evolved" can mean lots of different things. You need to get specific. You deny natural selection, don't you? Explain why. Do you deny random variation as well, or just natural selection? What's your alternative explanation for the diversity of life? What do you want to replace the theory of evolution with?
Religion is way more better than such theory of evolution. You can't deny this fact.
Religion isn't a scientific theory. I don't know what you're so threatened by.
Are you worried that if the theory of evolution is correct, your faith in your God or religion might be shaken to its core?
Of course there is not such a "selection". Your term "natural selection" implies a selective event, and such is not what happens in the real world.
I gave you a specific scenario of birds eating insects that disproves your claim directly. You ignored it and had no response. Why?
Your theory implies beliefs. Unless you believe "nature" has a brain and causes modifications to certain species and extinction to others.
Don't you understand the theory? Where did I say nature has a brain, or anything even vaguely resembling that? Why are you trying to erect a straw man, rather than addressing what I actually put to you?
The causes are random, no one is in control, there is not a programing in order to be studied as such.
Correct. And so... ?
Yes. Obviously, you need some basic education about the theory of evolution. It sounds like you've been getting all your information on evolution from your church, or from Answers in Genesis or some other unreliable source. I can teach you some actual science. You should take advantage of my greater knowledge, if you want to learn.
Look. you have not a single clue why bacterta is not affected by antibiotics after a bad application of a treatment.
That sounds like a really confused, half-arsed sort of idea you have there about antibiotic resistant bacteria. Just the way you phrase the question makes it clear that you have no clue what you're talking about there.
Please try asking me again. Start with a sensible, clear question.
The ignorant believes such is "adaptation", such is a "super bacteria", such is evolution", bacteria is more "resistant".
Some bacteria have evolved resistance to one or more antibiotics. Do you not believe this? Are you denying the fact that some antibiotics can't kill the bacteria?
If you were to know the real reason, even if I prove it to you, you won't accept it and you will call it "evolution" anyway, even when the evidence tells you that such is not what happened.
Another empty claim that you have the goods. But once again you don't offer anything up. If you had the "real reason" you'd just tell me what it was, rather than spouting this nonsense about not telling me because I won't accept it anyway. Grow up, Luchito. I'm an adult. You'll need to act like an adult too, if you want to have a proper discussion with me. These kids' games of yours, and your playground posturing, don't impress me. How old are you? You sound like a teenager who has convinced himself that he knows everything, and who is slow to realise the truth.
Neither Einstein nor his followers have never ever explained the process of dilatation of time, because... it never happens.
There's little point in my engaging with you on this topic, because you are simply in denial of observed facts. As has been pointed out to you, the GPS system your phone uses simply would not work if time dilation never happens. Close your eyes and bury your head in the sand if you like; meanwhile, the rest of the world will accept established facts and operate on that basis.
Here, in this topic religion prevails over science, and religion will prevail forever.
So far, you've been utterly incapable of providing anything to support any of your grandiose claims.
Well, you never know. Maybe you'll provide some actual evidence or argument in your next post. I won't hold my breath.
