So there is no evolutionist here who can provide tangible proof still?

Na wa o. Not even cloudgoddess with all her chemical this and chemical that could provide proof. Na real wa.

naijadeyhia:

If you could pick that singular highlighted statement I made and leave out the rest what does that say?
If you have an answer say it and stop trying to explain me. Explain evolution with proof. I didnt ask for proof of me or my words but proof of evolution.

My point was that what you picked out changed the context of your question. You rephrased and made more sense contextually, albeit erroneously. Someone said earlier that you don't believe in evolution, you understand it (Hahn I think). It's not anyone's responsibility here to help you understand (with the way you're going at it). The Internet is there for research purposes. You only need to seek. Many of the people that understand evolution here didn't do so via such cynical means. I bet if you did your research well enough and came here with valid questions, you would get valid answers. But you're not after valid answers. There are theists that understand it, and there are atheists that don't. It has nothing to do with belief in diety(ies). Asking for evidence for evolution as a form of challenge is intellectually downgrading for anybody that accepts because your motives are obvious. You need evidence? Seek it diligently and ye shall find.

naijadeyhia:



I saw it clearly. So let me help rephrase. If evolution isnt the random mashing together of different species is it then the random mashing together of same species or the intelligent mashing together of same species?

If you randomly mash together same species would you get a different specie?

Yes or no?

First question is fallacious and second reeks of a poor understanding of how evolution works. Get the basics bro. Sign up for Evolution 101.

stainlex:

My point was that what you picked out changed the context of your question. You rephrased and made more sense contextually, albeit erroneously. Someone said earlier that you don't believe in evolution, you understand it (Hahn I think). It's not anyone's responsibility here to help you understand (with the way you're going at it). The Internet is there for research purposes. You only need to seek. Many of the people that understand evolution here didn't do so via such cynical means. I bet if you did your research well enough and came here with valid questions, you would get valid answers. But you're not after valid answers. There are theists that understand it, and there are atheists that don't. It has nothing to do with belief in diety(ies). Asking for evidence for evolution as a form of challenge is intellectually downgrading for anybody that accepts because your motives are obvious. You need evidence? Seek it diligently and ye shall find.



First question is fallacious and second reeks of a poor understanding of how evolution works. Get the basics bro. Sign up for Evolution 101.

I asked a simple question. Evolution takes millions of years to process and complete itself right? If this were true then this means we are the future of yesterdays evolution that took millions of years right? So where is the evolutionary continuity in our time or did everything evolve simultaneously and stoo evolving simultaneously? I ask because by now I shoukd be seeing lizards with feathers or bees with scales as a continuum of the evolutionary process.

stainlex:

My point was that what you picked out changed the context of your question. You rephrased and made more sense contextually, albeit erroneously. Someone said earlier that you don't believe in evolution, you understand it (Hahn I think). It's not anyone's responsibility here to help you understand (with the way you're going at it). The Internet is there for research purposes. You only need to seek. Many of the people that understand evolution here didn't do so via such cynical means. I bet if you did your research well enough and came here with valid questions, you would get valid answers. But you're not after valid answers. There are theists that understand it, and there are atheists that don't. It has nothing to do with belief in diety(ies). Asking for evidence for evolution as a form of challenge is intellectually downgrading for anybody that accepts because your motives are obvious. You need evidence? Seek it diligently and ye shall find.



First question is fallacious and second reeks of a poor understanding of how evolution works. Get the basics bro. Sign up for Evolution 101.

Why do I need to seek for something diligently if I am told the evidence is numerous? Can we not relate the evolutionary process to todays creatures? Show me proof.

naijadeyhia:



Why do I need to seek for something diligently if I am told the evidence is numerous? Can we not relate the evolutionary process to todays creatures? Show me proof.

Ok. I'm sick and tired of you denying every shred of proof and evidence that comes your way in this thread. Tell me, what exactly are you looking for? What kind of evidence would change your mind?

State it and I'll show you.

stainlex:

My point was that what you picked out changed the context of your question. You rephrased and made more sense contextually, albeit erroneously. Someone said earlier that you don't believe in evolution, you understand it (Hahn I think). It's not anyone's responsibility here to help you understand (with the way you're going at it). The Internet is there for research purposes. You only need to seek. Many of the people that understand evolution here didn't do so via such cynical means. I bet if you did your research well enough and came here with valid questions, you would get valid answers. But you're not after valid answers. There are theists that understand it, and there are atheists that don't. It has nothing to do with belief in diety(ies). Asking for evidence for evolution as a form of challenge is intellectually downgrading for anybody that accepts because your motives are obvious. You need evidence? Seek it diligently and ye shall find.



First question is fallacious and second reeks of a poor understanding of how evolution works. Get the basics bro. Sign up for Evolution 101.

Since you are an expert on evolution let me ask you this.

given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?


If you do not understand the question let me know so I rephrase for you.

CoolUsername:


Ok. I'm sick and tired of you denying every shred of proof and evidence that comes your way in this thread. Tell me, what exactly are you looking for? What kind of evidence would change your mind?

State it and I'll show you.

Go to the OP

naijadeyhia:



Go to the OP

The OP is full of misconceptions about evolution and basically falls apart on itself. It doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to knowledge about this theory. I want you to state your singular most pressing question. It would be much easier to correct any misconception like that and provide evidence.

EDIT: Tik tok tik tok

stainlex:

My point was that what you picked out changed the context of your question. You rephrased and made more sense contextually, albeit erroneously. Someone said earlier that you don't believe in evolution, you understand it (Hahn I think). It's not anyone's responsibility here to help you understand (with the way you're going at it). The Internet is there for research purposes. You only need to seek. Many of the people that understand evolution here didn't do so via such cynical means. I bet if you did your research well enough and came here with valid questions, you would get valid answers. But you're not after valid answers. There are theists that understand it, and there are atheists that don't. It has nothing to do with belief in diety(ies). Asking for evidence for evolution as a form of challenge is intellectually downgrading for anybody that accepts because your motives are obvious. You need evidence? Seek it diligently and ye shall find.



First question is fallacious and second reeks of a poor understanding of how evolution works. Get the basics bro. Sign up for Evolution 101.

Permit me to dig deeper as an ex science freak.....yeah I used to be one. Surprised?

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere.

However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone.

The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

I think you are the one who needs to enrol for Evolution 101

Cc seun, cloudgoddess am I right or am I wrong?

This thread is a disgrace to even retarded people!!! The creator of this thread(used to make dirty, smelly rags), DOES NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION!!! I SUGGEST YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ASK THEM FOR A REFUND OF ALL YOUR SCHOOL FEES/PLUS A LETTER OF APOLOGY!!!

I have absolutely no issue with a man who is ignorant, or a man who persists in his self-inflicted mental illness!!! What frightens me about people like you, is the fact that you actually are proud of your ignorance!!!

CoolUsername:


The OP is full of misconceptions about evolution and basically falls apart on itself. It doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to knowledge about this theory. I want you to state your singular most pressing question. It would be much easier to correct any misconception like that and provide evidence.

EDIT: Tik tok tik tok

Evolution is way beyond your undersranding young man. I know what I am talking about. I used to be neck deep in science that I almost went crazy so let me show you the evolution you do not understand in a simple way. I hope this would be simple enough for you to understand and respond to.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist.

Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form.

This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

Niflheim:
This thread is a disgrace to even retarded people!!! The creator of this thread(used to make dirty, smelly rags), DOES NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION!!! I SUGGEST YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ASK THEM FOR A REFUND OF ALL YOUR SCHOOL FEES/PLUS A LETTER OF APOLOGY!!!

I have absolutely no issue with a man who is ignorant, or a man who persists in his self-inflicted mental illness!!! What frightens me about people like you, is the fact that you actually are proud of your ignorance!!!

I knew people like you with no knowledge or answer but fully laden with insults would appear on this thread which was why I already responded to you in the OP. Kindly read the bolded.


I have a good question about evolution. If species are evolving, how come we don't see any doggie-cats? How about monkey-bats? Why I don't even see an ant with a human head or anything in nature that is in the process of evolving into something else. My cat is still a cat and has never evolved into a pig. Examine your pets. Maybe your parakeet or parrot is evolving into a buffalo? Do you see any buffalo fur on it? I do not see any practical, common-sense, evidence of any evolution taking place. It it were, we are bound to see some animals of the millions on earth "evolving" into a new life form. All the zoo animals I see in the zoos are not evolving. It ain't happening folks! Show me the proof. Show me the evidence. So far, God has shown his hand. He said he created the creatures and his creatures are visible proof of what he said has become visible before your very eyes. Now show me proof that evolution is real. I want to see it for myself. I want real evidence that would be held up in any court of law. Not speculation or theory... real proof.

Now don't be a Human Baboon about this subject or you will demonstrate yourself as proof-positive that some sort of dehumanizing evolution is taking place. Be sensible and respectful. It is a good question. How come we see not one evidence of any mammal, human or beast evolving? Seems to me, there is no evolution taking place except in the fantasy of the mind, the dreamer of dreams. Present the evidence to the judge so the jury can see the evidence and make a reasonable decision. Present actual evidence, not hearsay or preponderance. The real thing is needed. Can you deliver?

Evidence of Super Ignorance 1: "I have never seen monkey bats"...........................I have been reading books on Evolution for years, and I have never seen any statement that claims that monkeys can change to bats!!! I challenge you to provide a book by an Evolutionary Biologist(non Lamarkian),which claims that a monkey can change to a bat!!! I will give you 1 million naira!!! If your foolish and ignorant pastors were trying to make fun of Darwin by saying they have never seen a monkey-bat, does that mean you should follow them in your typical religious goat herd mentality!!! Evolution in bats=Blood sucking bats/Insectivorous bats and Fructivorous bats!!! If the blood sucking bat does not suck blood every 2 days, it will die!!! Even if you offer it insects or fruits!!!

Niflheim:
Evidence of Super Ignorance 1: "I have never seen monkey bats"...........................I have been reading books on Evolution for years, and I have never seen any statement that claims that monkeys can change to bats!!! I challenge you to provide a book by an Evolutionary Biologist(non Lamarkian),which claims that a monkey can change to a bat!!! I will give you 1 million naira!!! If your foolish and ignorant pastors were trying to make fun of Darwin by saying they have never seen a monkey-bat, does that mean you should follow them in your typical religious goat herd mentality!!! Evolution in bats=Blood sucking bats/Insectivorous bats and Fructivorous bats!!! If the blood sucking bat does not suck blood every 2 days, it will die!!! Even if you offer it insects or fruits!!!

This will serve as your final warning. So far everyone here has been respectful. One more brutish outburst from you and you will be banned.

I have already given you my answer above and will not repeat myself.

If you feel so hurt that you need to insult and constitute a nuisance to yourself then please bounce to another thread and vent there. Certainly not on this one.

Evidence of Super Stupidity 2:" My cat is still a cat, but not a pig"............................STRAWMAN FALLACY!!! Evolution has never said that cats can become pigs!!! Have you not noticed that not all big cats can roar?!!! The clouded leopard and the snow leopard are big cats but lack the ability to roar!!! They purr like cats!!! Yet the remaining species of leopards roar like tigers!!! WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU?!!! YOUR "UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG"!!!

Niflheim:
Evidence of Super Stupidity 2:" My cat is still a cat, but not a pig"............................STRAWMAN FALLACY!!! Evolution has never said that cats can become pigs!!! Have you not noticed that not all big cats can roar?!!! The clouded leopard and the snow leopard are big cats but lack the ability to roar!!! They purr like cats!!! Yet the remaining species of leopards roar like tigers!!! WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU?!!! YOUR "UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG"!!!

Again, everyone has been respectful to each other but you are bent on lashing out at me verbally even after you have been warned. Thank you very much.

naijadeyhia:



Evolution is way beyond your undersranding young man. I know what I am talking about. I used to be neck deep in science that I almost went crazy so let me show you the evolution you do not understand in a simple way. I hope this would be simple enough for you to understand and respond to.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist.

Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form.

This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

You've step power or of the realm of evolution now straight into abiogenesis theory. Here, nothing is really set in stone as it is difficult to exactly replicate the initial conditions of earth.

The first problem in your line of reasoning is that you believe that replicating the conditions of early earth would produce results when the earliest living molecule existed only existed about a billion years after it's formation.

Abiogenesis is still very hypothetical. Until we're sufficiently conversant with early earth's chemistry, it would be difficult replicate the processes. It is work in progress.

Now for the scientists amongst the evolutionists permit me to use science to teach you science.

We all know that DNA is the bedrock of human evolutionary theory right? So lets talk about that for a bit.

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved.
Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

if what I just stated is wrong please a scientist amongst you should say so.

CoolUsername:


You've step power or of the realm of evolution now straight into abiogenesis theory. Here, nothing is really set in stone as it is difficult to exactly replicate the initial conditions of earth.

The first problem in your line of reasoning is that you believe that replicating the conditions of early earth would produce results when the earliest living molecule existed only existed about a billion years after it's formation.

Abiogenesis is still very hypothetical. Until we're sufficiently conversant with early earth's chemistry, it would be difficult replicate the processes. It is work in progress.

So if scientists are not yet conversant with the early earths chemistry and its not possible to replicate the processes how then did they arrive at the big bang theory and early life being supported and evolving?

Please respond to the post I made before this one before you respond to this so I can link both.

@Naijadeyhia, I am very sorry for all the insults!!! Please forgive me!!!

Niflheim:
@Naijadeyhia, I am very sorry for all the insults!!! Please forgive me!!!

We are all here to learn and the right atmosphere is crucial to that. Good thing you cautioned yourself. Apology affirmed.

naijadeyhia:
Now for the scientists amongst the evolutionists permit me to use science to teach you science.

We all know that DNA is the bedrock of human evolutionary theory right? So lets talk about that for a bit.

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved.
Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

if what I just stated is wrong please a scientist amongst you should say so.

RNA is said to be a precursor to DNA. It still serves as the genetic material in viruses today. DNA won out because of its higher stability but there is the possibility that the world was an RNA world.

Molecular self-assembly is the process that spontaneously forms complex self-replicating RNA strands from simpler compounds.

CoolUsername:


RNA is said to be a precursor to DNA. It still serves as the genetic material in viruses today. DNA won out because of its higher stability but there is the possibility that the world was an RNA world.

Molecular self-assembly is the process that spontaneously forms complex self-replicating RNA strands from simpler compounds.

Thanks for that answer. Now let me round this up and drop the mic like olamide did.

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”


*drops mic*

Ps read this again and again till you grasp it. Evolution never happened.

naijadeyhia:



So if scientists are not yet conversant with the early earths chemistry and its not possible to replicate the processes how then did they arrive at the big bang theory and early life being supported and evolving?

Please respond to the post I made before this one before you respond to this so I can link both.

That is because physicists are able to read the background radiation in the vacuum of space. The large size of space allows us to see into the past and witness the natural process that give rise to celestial bodies. Unfortunately, we only have fossil records and genetics to see the past in Biology. After so many years of fossil collection everything fits perfectly into the scientific model. Countless predictions have been met countless times and so on.

naijadeyhia:


Thanks for that answer. Now let me round this up and drop the mic like olamide did.

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”


*drops mic*

Ps read this again and again till you grasp it. Evolution never happened.

Pick up your mic because there are RNA molecules that exclusively copy molecules of opposite orientation. It even works when there is a orientations in the chain.

CoolUsername:


Ok. I'm sick and tired of you denying every shred of proof and evidence that comes your way in this thread. Tell me, what exactly are you looking for? What kind of evidence would change your mind?

State it and I'll show you.

Don't dare mention that, honestly, he has been plain.
If you can't produce just a proof, it's a big shame.
All answers provided were just assumptions from others who accepted evolutions too. No one has penned any tangible proof, not even one, bro.

CoolUsername:


Pick up your mic because there are RNA molecules that exclusively copy molecules of opposite orientation. It even works when there is a orientations in the chain.

Ok let me pick up the mic again for your sake and further refute your assertion.

*picks up mic*

CoolUsername:


That is because physicists are able to read the background radiation in the vacuum of space. The large size of space allows us to see into the past and witness the natural process that give rise to celestial bodies. Unfortunately, we only have fossil records and genetics to see the past in Biology. After so many years of fossil collection everything fits perfectly into the scientific model. Countless predictions have been met countless times and so on.

Let me start from here.

The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian layer not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological enigmas,’ . Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser”

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs.

Am indeed following.
The coolest thread I've ever seen on Nairaland, I swear.
naijadeyhia, please, we need to talk.

For the second way I want to prove to you that evolution is false, kindly give me 5 or so minutes to put it down in writing so I would not make errors while rushing. Just 5 mins.

tempem:
Am indeed following.
The coolest thread I've ever seen on Nairaland, I swear.
naijadeyhia, please, we need to talk.

Anytime bro