If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

originally posted by: wisvol
Genetic mutations, as proven through multiple scientific experiments on animals and people, are a hindrance to procreation, not a source of diverse abilities and species.

Which experiments? Why haven't you posted them? Just saying this is the case doesn't make it so.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Which experiments? Why haven't you posted them? Just saying this is the case doesn't make it so.

I have posted them, on this site.

When it is so, and people say it isn't, saying it is so is also important because they can verify whether what is said holds to experiment.

For starters, Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiment, confirmed by Urey & Miller disprove scientifically the notion of spontaneous generation.

Then the Debraine experiment with drosophilia is available from the Royal Atheneum of Rixensart's experiment and is one of the most thoroughly documented ones on the topic imo.

Then there is the Monsanto Agent Orange experiment, which also shows that genetic mutations don't make x-men, or monkeys, or anything other than disfunctional people.

Any time bud

a reply to: secretboss

evolution is not true

a reply to: wisvol

For starters, how about posting links to these studies? Onus of proof is on you and telling me you've posted them before doesn't cut it. Link them now.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

When you make false claims suggesting the fossils have not been found for all those numerous species is a flat out lie, just like claiming dragons bones are all over the place. define: monkeyman

Yea thanks for the straw buddy.

The false claim quoted is yours: fossils have been found of numerous species.
Resembling species (such as monkey and man or cat and dog) aren't determined through necromancy because dead things don't breed.

You just created a red herring. I asked you to define monkeyman and you refused, so the conversation cannot progress. Clearly you aren't talking about evolution here or anything relevant to it. You claim is a lie, flat and simple. 20+ species in between ancient ape and modern human have been discovered in fossil finds, yet you claim it's all fake. This is flat earther logic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are too asky.

And the tone doesn't help

a reply to: Barcs

I did not refuse to define monkeyman, it's actually straightforward enough: some species that cannot breed with monkey or man, so it could be assumed to be an intermediary step.

Others have tried, Krazy here will dig up the docs for you

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are too asky.

And the tone doesn't help

Oh boohoo. Burden of Proof

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat)) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You are wrong until you prove your point. Typing out a bunch of text isn't proof of anything. For all I know you completely misunderstood the studies, or the studies don't even exist. I really don't care which, but in either case I don't believe you. Post some links.

a reply to: wisvol

For starters, Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiment, confirmed by Urey & Miller disprove scientifically the notion of spontaneous generation.

What does spontaneous generation have to do with beneficial or harmful mutations? I don't think you even understand what those experiments quoted above were actually about. They had nothing do with genetic mutations. If you had even taken the time to read them you'd know this already.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

Others have tried, Krazy here will dig up the docs for you

No. I don't prove points for other people. I just call you a liar.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The onus is on the nuts who think man evolved from cercops specificus.

The scientific method requires you to go through the motions of experimenting, and I see you're wise enough not to take a stranger's word on important questions such as this one, congrats.

I have mentioned great leads for you to explore, do or don't, I'm happy either way.

originally posted by: wisvol
I did not refuse to define monkeyman, it's actually straightforward enough: some species that cannot breed with monkey or man, so it could be assumed to be an intermediary step.

Homo habilis, homo erectus, Australopithecus Afarensis, homo rudolfensis. None of those could breed with man or monkeys. And that's just off the top of my head. I could list dozens more, but I sense this conversation is going nowhere and you will pretend these species don't exist or find some silly unscientific way to discount them that shows lack of knowledge on the topic. Good luck.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The onus is on the nuts who think man evolved from cercops specificus.

No the onus is on the person who just made the following statement to prove said statement:

Genetic mutations, as proven through multiple scientific experiments on animals and people, are a hindrance to procreation, not a source of diverse abilities and species.

That's science 101 right there.

The scientific method requires you to go through the motions of experimenting, and I see you're wise enough not to take a stranger's word on important questions such as this one, congrats.

I have mentioned great leads for you to explore, do or don't, I'm happy either way.

Great leads that you clearly haven't read yourself.

a reply to: Barcs

What does spontaneous generation have to do with beneficial or harmful mutations? I don't think you even understand what those experiments were about. They had nothing do with genetic mutations.

Smart move editing out the basis for slap material there.

To answer your question, spontaneous generation is a prerequisite for the origin of species as other species (because there has to be a first, which people until Pasteur assumed to just pop out of thin air)
and beneficial mutations are required to transform a frog into a prince, which is your theory of the origins of man, comically enough.

Monsanto's agent Orange experiment had everything to do with mutations, and so do all drosophilia + genetic stimuli experiments I've heard of so far.

What you think and understand is not that much of a priority right now, but accuracy would be nice.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK my turn

I'd call you a liar too, but there is a distinct possibility that you're just not capable of logical thought, so I'll leave that door open.

The experiments I've mentioned in this thread by name are what is referred to in your quote.

And that's not what "clearly" means. You may assume I haven't read them, and you'd be wrong on that too.

a reply to: wisvol

I didn't make any claims, so if you call me a liar you are merely lying again.

Still waiting for those links though. Your attempts at deflecting away from posting them are duly noted and pretty much cementing in my mind your closed mindedness.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh so it *is* the logic thing. Makes sense

I didn't make any claims, so if you call me a liar you are merely lying again.

You claimed that I am a liar, then claimed to have claimed nothing. See how that works?

Apply to other topics, problem solved

Good luck

a reply to: wisvol

Still deflecting I see. Well continue with your private circle jerk. I gave you a shot to back your nonsense up, but I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt. Cya. Enjoy wallowing in ignorance.

originally posted by: wisvol
Smart move editing out the basis for slap material there.

Not sure what you mean there. I edited it for clarity.

To answer your question, spontaneous generation is a prerequisite for the origin of species as other species (because there has to be a first, which people until Pasteur assumed to just pop out of thin air)
and beneficial mutations are required to transform a frog into a prince, which is your theory of the origins of man, comically enough.

No it's not. Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution. That was a possible explanation for the origin of life that turned out to be wrong. The only pre-requistite to evolution is LIFE. It doesn't matter how it got here. You tried to lie again and say that mutations have been proven to be harmful and then backed that up with an experiment that has nothing to do with mutations. That is LOLworthy, I'm sorry. If you don't understand the topic, do some research first instead of parroting long debunked creationist rhetoric.

accuracy would be nice.

Yes it would be. So far you are not being accurate in the slightest.

a reply to: Barcs

The only pre-requistite to evolution is LIFE. It doesn't matter how it got here. You tried to lie again and say that mutations have been proven to be harmful and then backed that up with an experiment that has nothing to do with mutations

It matters how life got here if you're going to claim science, which you have done.

I backed up the fact that mutations do not add genetically beneficial data with two experiments whose reached goal was to demonstrate that fact scientifically.

Your ad hominem is out of place.