10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

a reply to: Starbucks
So based on a list from a list national institute of health (note the name) on mutations that, wait for it, affect your health. You conclude that there are no beneficial mutations? Any mutation can only be beneficial based on the environment. For example skin pigmentation and amount of sun light.

a reply to: ScepticScot
the mutation of losing skin pigmentation found in melanesians (blond melanesians) and their descendents the europpeans, is harmful, causing skin cancer, and the skin become disturbed .
mutation of blue eyes is harmful too.
mutation of lactose intolerance is harmful, and was in its hayday fatal, if not mothers made their children drink bloob instead of milk (origin of vampires saga was real)
scientists collected all the genetic mutations (differ from the original or the majority) they found non is beneficial.

the number of congenital and non congenital diseases are caused by genetic mutation. depression, suicide suseptability, gambling, loss of smell, .................etc etc

it is very easy to find mutated genes, because you are looking at specific areas in chromosomes.
and because mutant genes stand out (simply) against the background of majority.

so non of mutations were beneficial. kabish?

originally posted by: Starbucks
a reply to: ScepticScot
the mutation of losing skin pigmentation found in melanesians (blond melanesians) and their descendents the europpeans, is harmful, causing skin cancer, and the skin become disturbed .
mutation of blue eyes is harmful too.
mutation of lactose intolerance is harmful, and was in its hayday fatal, if not mothers made their children drink bloob instead of milk (origin of vampires saga was real)
scientists collected all the genetic mutations (differ from the original or the majority) they found non is beneficial.

the number of congenital and non congenital diseases are caused by genetic mutation. depression, suicide suseptability, gambling, loss of smell, .................etc etc

it is very easy to find mutated genes, because you are looking at specific areas in chromosomes.
and because mutant genes stand out (simply) against the background of majority.

so non of mutations were beneficial. kabish?

Utter honk. I have blue eyes. Why is that a bad thing?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
I will say this much, all the Scientists can see a massive pattern in the Universe, one that goes beyond the regular thought of "Evolution".

Evolution denotes that things are all happening "naturally".

Religion implies only a GOD controls everything.

Both sides are ridiculously inadequate, and yet are hand in hand controlling the thoughts of everyone on the dam planet, I pose that BOTH are the enemy in every way, and are the rantings of the criminally insane, the ravings of completely controlled and unable to see.

SO many more scenarios can be seen, that I will not even mention them, luckily they will be transmitted anyways.

It's a shame, because this is the one real bit of wisdom in this thread.

a reply to: Starbucks
And lower skin pigmentation is beneficial in the north where there is less sunlight. (vitamin d absorption) . Depends on environment exactly as I said.

a reply to: OptimusSubprime

The word "evolution" is defined as "change over time".

That definition is very open - many many things change over time and can therefor be said to evolve.

In order to hold a meaningful discussion about any topic we must adhere to a few rules, the chief among them being to understand the context in which ambiguous words are used.

When discussing the evolution of biological organisms, it is at least anti-social, if not down right rude to try to obscure the context of the discussion with alternate usages of the word evolution. And it has been pointed out to you already that the attempt to distinguish between micro and macro evolution is misleading at best.

The word "evolution", when used to describe a particular theory in a discussion about a scientific topic is almost universally understood to mean biological evolution. It is a shortcut or nickname for the full name of the theory "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis". It specifically does not describe every evolutionary process, even though everything that changes over time can be said to evolve.

If we were discussing the evolution of the universe or the planets we would call the topic "cosmology" not "evolution" even though the universe does change over time. What you call "organic evolution" and describe as the "origin of life" is actually called "Abiogenesis" (and your term 'sounds' more like it is describing the evolution of organisms, which is more simply called 'evolution').

The bottom line is that it is rude to try to impose your own misleading and purposeless terminology and definitions on others. It adds nothing to the conversation and in fact makes conversation with you impossible.

a reply to: rnaa
Yes but mitsubishi have a car called an evolution and it is clearly designed therefore god did it. The logic is impeccable....

originally posted by: Starbucks
these 10 facts about evolution are actually true to the bone:


according to entropy along with expansion of the universe, evolution is a waste of effort. and then mutations that increase by time,along with the general law of degradation by time, proved by the 99% of life is extinct against evolution. The claim of punctuated equilibrium sounds much like the new spesies after extinction episodes was caused ratherby new creation. Mutations that increase by time can only make harmful genes (harmful mutations that protect against diseases can not be counted beneficial mutation). carbon dating showed many times the recent age of bones where then were dismissed by evolutionists that carbon dating must have been due to dating the contamination not the bones because the bones have to be old (????)(forcing their own premise on the research and testing!.

not to forget that the first 3 skuls since Darwin, 2 were forged with the knowledge of Darwin of one of the forged bones.
so at least 66% of later discovered bones you would expect the same trend 70% forged making fraudelant samples (predetemined samples)

WOW. You literally just took every one of my fallacies and repeated them...

By the powers The Internet hath bestowed upon me, I invoke the almighty.... POE'S LAW!

It is an observation that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to have been so over-the-top that they argue he was a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.

3 letters alone disprove evolution ( which is just a theory) DNA..... If we all came from a single cell organism. Albeit plant animal etc..... then why can't we take human DNA an make a plant out of it? If evolution is true then we should be able to genetically build from the past. Meaning that we should be able to stair step back through genes and make anything that we have evolved from. Also how did one cell decide to be a plant while another an animal. I am tired of evolution being treated as fact when it is nothing short of a religion. But it's followers Ignore that they are asking you to believe in a theory. Most evolutionists are atheists and claim they are not religious the whole time spouting the religion of evolution...... hmmmmmmm..... a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: hanyak69

Is this a serious post? You're joking with me right? You just wanted to post a bunch of fallacies about the theory of evolution as some sort of satirical post right? I just have a hard time accepting that you'd talk about something like you are with such a TERRIBLE understanding of how DNA, evolution, and science all work, which you displayed for me with that post of yours.

a reply to: GetHyped
I think on ATS poe's law just shakes its head sadly and walks away.

a reply to: hanyak69

Before we continue, I'd like Hanyak69 to answer a question. Hanyak, you make a claim against the validity of evolution, and you call upon the concept of DNA to do so. I'd like you right now, without copy and pasting from wikipedia, to explain to me what DNA is, what DNA does, and how DNA does it. Lastly, I'd like you to give me 3 examples of how this process can go wrong. These set of questions are about as simple as can possibly be for somebody who is familiar with genetics, and should undoubtedly be just as simple for someone who uses the concept of DNA in an argument against evolution. Please, nobody interject their answer, this question is specifically directed towards Hanyak69

a reply to: kayej1188
I would go make a nice cup of tea while waiting if I was you. Running an entire wiki article through a thesaurus can take a bit of time.

originally posted by: Starbucks
the most famous skulls were the first 3 ones and 2 were proven forgeries the piltman skul mentioned earlier in the first post.

What were the first 3 skulls found related to human evolution? What was the alleged other one you claim was a hoax and where are your citations supporting your blatant ignorance?

Piltdown was immediately suspect by the scientific community and upon peer review it came to light very quickly and was discovered to be a hoax. Do you understand what that means? Tat the only person who actually believed that piltdown man was really a human ancestor was the huckster trying to peddle it as such.
From the wiki on Piltdown

Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged. At the Royal College of Surgeons copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model

the 99% of life extinct refernced by the first post and is also against evolution.

No, all that means is that you don't have even a basic grasp on anthropology,paleontology, biology or geology because you are discounting every major extinction event in earths history. That mammals were able to thrive and take over niches previously occupied solely by dinosaurs is in fact evidence in favor of evolution working.

the law of enrtropy and degradation by time are found in any online dictionary.

But its not pertinent to evolution, you completely misunderstand the context you're trying to bring forth.

punctutated equilibrium is referenced by the first post and claim slow evolution is not seen but mass extinctions followed by different species explained by evolutionists that mutations scramble to fix the problem (sounds like intelligent design not thinking by the mutations about what to do to preserve the species!!!

No, you clearly don't understand what punctuated equilibrium means then. What punctuated equilibrium states is that while in most cases evolution is a slow process, that on occasion it takes a quick leap or bound.

no beneficial mutations (evolution ) have ever been noticed.
out of thousands of mutations classified by National Institute of Health, all of them harmful.

Again, you're absolutely incorrect. Most mutations are neutral, neither harmful nor beneficial. A far as beneficial mutations, they really are dependent on the environment of the organism in question. The kit fox is very well adapted to life in the desert, its mutations are beneficial to its survival. The arctic fox likewise has developed adaptations that help it thrive in cold climates. Switch the organisms around in their niches and suddenly they would both be at a great disadvantage whereas in the niche they are adapted to they are perfectly suited.

the website wiki about mutations mentions two examples of so called beneficial mutations
the first a harmful mutation found in whites protect them against HIV.
the second is yet another harmful mutation that causes the deadly Sickle cell anemia protects against Malaria?
no beneficial mutations were seen so far.

Really? Lactose tolerance is a great example of a beneficial mutation. Ten thousand years ago everyone was lactose intolerant. Humans with significant european ancestry have, over many generations, become adapted to drinking cows milk.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a beneficial mutation from the standpoint of bacteria.

Radiation resistant fungi thriving in Chernobyl. Te German "Super Boy" who was born with a mutation that boosts muscle growth. Www.nbcnews.com/I'd/5278028/#.u_d4dyLD_oo

There is a beneficial mutation for stronger bones that impairs the function of LRP5

Your example for sickle cell anemia is rather poorly researched because not all born with sickle shaped red blood cells develop anemia. It's a hemoglobin mutation called HbS. With one copy you are resistant to malaria, only those with 2 copies of the gene develop anemic issues. And the percentages with the negative issues are rather small.

Tetrachromatic vision in humans...most mammals are color blind where we are not.

You really don't bother researching this do you? Are you just copy and pasting from ICR?


Care to cite what is harmful about the ccr5^32 mutation that protects against HIV? It also protects against the plague and smallpox by the way.

carbon dating is neglected because it shows recent date contradicting 10 folds over date made by several unsensitive tests.

Can you cite examples? Or can you stop using your defecation hole for speaking when you don't actually know what you're talking about?

once upon a time when ancient horses were about to go extinct, all elders of the horses met in a round table and one of the elders the most genius horse in horses history, suggested that if all the few horses remaing shock their bodies hard enough many mutations will happen and cause the horses to be more fertile and become larger in size.

a reply to: Starbucks

I'm impressed that you're managing to make even less sense than you were before.

the story of Horsa the most genius horse in horses history is actually the story of punctuated disquilibirium of the crazy evolutionsts.
crazy in the membrane

a reply to: Starbucks

Hey now...don't blame the horses for you not having a clue and then trying to pretend you do. Those poor innocent equines never did anything to you. I notice you haven't tried to refute any of my reply to you. Cat got your tongue? Or maybe the horse? It's cute watching you run in circles.

punctuated disequilibrium is nothing but creation