The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

For me its plants that made us, or the mother goddess or are they one and the same, either way, psychoactive plant material have been shown to have chemicals that build brain chemistry, it makes sense that we have evolves through our local plant eating habits and consciousness, do you know hay fever is a relatively new phenomenon, our senses are recently able to detect it. We are also a work in progress, we need to stop thinking conversely in that sense.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
For me its plants that made us, or the mother goddess or are they one and the same, either way, psychoactive plant material have been shown to have chemicals that build brain chemistry, it makes sense that we have evolves through our local plant eating habits and consciousness, do you know hay fever is a relatively new phenomenon, our senses are recently able to detect it. We are also a work in progress, we need to stop thinking conversely in that sense.

That is an idea I dabbled with for a while before throwing out the theory altogether. But for these plants to have an effect on the consumer, the consumer has to have the relevant receptors already available. For example, you wouldn't chew on the coca leaf if you didnt have coc aine receptors.

Even the dynamic between plant and consumer is very interdependent:

Plants intake CO2 and emit O2 - consumers intake O2 and emit CO2.
Plants intake metabolized waste and emit leaves/fruits - consumers intake leaves/fruit and emit metabolized waste

Even more interesting, when eating, for example, a blueberry, the seeds survive digestion in the gut and are emitted with the metabolized waste (poop) and are thus present in the perfect fertilizer to grow a new blueberry bush.

The interdependence of the ocular system I discussed in the OP is similar to the interdependence of plants and consumers - all parts need to be in place for a functional system.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah we breathe their and they breathe ours like the cycle if life, i love that fact it truly is an amazing thing to ponder, makes you just want to eat meat only lol. Anyway if plants breathe our used air and it nourishes them then what came first the animal or the plant...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

And , why look to the future ? All you have to do is look to the past...

Indeed. And, as one who understands probabilities, you understand that once something happens the odds against it happening are irrelevant.

In the past, I've vome across articles like the one which I will link, but I don't have the maths horsepower to objectively judge the claims made in the artcle respecting mathematical probablitiy or improbability of the building blocks of life forming randomly withing the finite timeframe that is the age of our univverse. I did jsut fine in my statistics class, but not enough to carry on any practical application.

I know you are pratty smart when it comes to math and science, in general. Maybe you could lend some insight into the truth or fallacies in the article at the link. Maybe you've already done so in the pages that follow, and if you have, my apologies. I wanted to get the question out before I got on to something else.

Thanks in advance.

How to Calculate the Improbability of Evolution

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: cooperton
then what came first the animal or the plant...

Yeah the chicken or the egg is a constant dilemma that argues against successive step-by-step formation of organisms (evolution). Both the consumer and the plant have to be in play to allow the interdependent ecosystem to persist.

originally posted by: Phage

Indeed. And, as one who understands probabilities, you understand that once something happens the odds against it happening are irrelevant.

This is essentially saying "evolution did it", therefore, evolution must have done it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dothedew

I'm afraid you're quite wrong on how organisms develop. Nature is quite remarkable in its efficiency. We don't develop useless blobs of cells unless they're cancerous or otherwise diseased. You might consider acquiring a freshman level biology book where this is all explained.

But that's his point. An evolving organ would have to go through a stage of uselessness, because there are so many component parts that are involved to become a functioning organ. Like your stomach - without the production of acid it cannot digest, but without an acid-resistant lining the acid would destroy the tissue. Not to mention the developmental necessity of organizing parietal cells in the correct location. Biology is absolutely fascinating and to attribute its complexity to randomness is stubborn atheism.

The stomach doesn't suddenly go from a useless hindrance to fully functional modern stomach. It just starts much more simplistic and slowly changes. Once again, you show no understanding of the basic mechanisms. It's the same irreducible complexity fallacy you already tried to peddle here. Old stuff, long debunked.

It seems you assume that a stomach would have to start as like a half or quarter stomach missing complete important parts, rather than having less developed and less complex parts. For some reason you completely dismiss the idea of incremental beneficial changes that slowly mold it into what it is today, when that is the core of evolution. Instead you sell it as having some useless blob of tissue developing for generations upon generations with no function until PRESTO! a fully functioning stomach. That's a straw man of how organs evolve. The process of taking in energy and expelling waste goes back to single celled organisms. The way in which that happens, has been slowly changing for billions of years. It's not even close to how you describe it.

a reply to: CoramDeo

Those calculations are fallacious and much isn't even related to evolution. It presumes the modern cell is as complex as the original. We don't yet know the odds of abiogenesis or the chance of conditions being right. Claiming it points to ID is really just an appeal to ignorance.

originally posted by: Barcs

It seems you assume that a stomach would have to start as like a half or quarter stomach missing complete important parts, rather than having less developed and less complex parts.

No I explained it from a macromolecular level, not a histological progression. Parietal cells are necessary for digestion, but the stomach would digest itself from the stomach acid produced by the parietal cells if not for an acid-resistant lining produced by by mucus cells. HCL itself is also not sufficient for digestion, the stomach also needs zymogenic cells to release the necessary proteins to react with the acid and form pepsin - a necessary protein for digestion. This entire process is regulated by adjacent enteroendocrine cells.

This demonstrates that the development of the stomach lining could not have occurred in an incremental manner because it requires parietal cells, mucus cells, zymogenic cells, and enteroendocrine cells to have a proper release of digestive enzymes.

a reply to: cooperton

Yawn...please. Unbelievably subjective opinions.

If you wish to believe in some mythical creature who has "always existed" (itself a nonsensical situation) then go ahead. If you wish to drink with your pals at the flat earth club then please go ahead.

Me....well I prefer to follow the ongoing increasing knowledge of human discovery. Sure it has its dead ends now and then but the onward forward direction is bleedin obvious to all to but the brainwashed or ideologically driven.

******NB NB NB I mentioned "dead ends" so please don't quote incorrect scientific theories as proof that science is wrong. Science is about rights and wrongs and dropping the wrongs...... which the ideologically driven do not understand.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: cooperton


Me....well I prefer to follow the ongoing increasing knowledge of human discovery.

So because I don't believe the same as you, you assume I do not pursue a logical comprehensive understanding of the world? That is extremely narrow-minded and chauvinistic. As if everyone who doesn't follow the same belief system as you is some moron who chews on rocks. Get real man. My entire OP is the surface layer of our understanding of the ocular system and how it connects to the cerebral centers of the brain. I deny no science. I only deny misconceived theories that do not match empirical data.

a reply to: cooperton

Again, all of that is irrelevant. The original digestive system was not identical to the modern one and didn't utilize all the advanced mechanisms that it has today.. You make the same logical flaw over and over and can't prove irreducible complexity. Yeah, we know that TODAY those factors are somewhat dependent on each other, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved incrementally. It's just the answer you want so you latch onto it as if it's the be all end all, when you literally proved zero, you just gave an opinion that takes a guess based on incomplete knowledge.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

And , why look to the future ? All you have to do is look to the past...

Indeed. And, as one who understands probabilities, you understand that once something happens the odds against it happening are irrelevant.

What "happened" though?

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

And , why look to the future ? All you have to do is look to the past...

Indeed. And, as one who understands probabilities, you understand that once something happens the odds against it happening are irrelevant.

What "happened" though?

He's saying that we already know life exists, so the probability of that is 100%. "But but but how did we get here?" isn't an argument. Nobody even knows the probability of any of that, just that we know life is here today and the best we can do to figure that out is run experiments and tests to see what can happen and what can't.

a reply to: Barcs

And out of a myriad of experiments trying to force evolution not a single one has succeeded, you left that important piece of information out of your statement...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

And out of a myriad of experiments trying to force evolution not a single one has succeeded, you left that important piece of information out of your statement...

No, that's just what deceived creationists THINK. They also don't even comprehend the difference between the origin of life and evolution and have never once offered a single refutation to a single piece of evidence. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance.

originally posted by: Barcs

No, that's just what deceived creationists THINK. They also don't even comprehend the difference between the origin of life and evolution and have never once offered a single refutation to a single piece of evidence. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance.

Your hyperbole is absurd. If you actually think there is not "a single refutation to a single piece of evidence (for evolution)", then this demonstrates your lack of honesty regarding the evidence on the matter. It also demonstrates you have traded objectivity for blind belief.

a reply to: Barcs

Well then you are holding out on us, by all means mr wizard produce the results from said experiments you alone hold the keys to...
Produce the experiment and the results proving that evolution was actually observed in...

Of course I know this is just your weak attempt to DECIEVE with ridicule while lying to everyone...

Maybe you actually believe you are telling the truth though if that is the case I can’t help but feel just the least bit sorry for you...Because your faith in evolution has become so strong you now actually suffer from delusions...

Failing to produce the above results will only invalidate your sentiments on myself and all other so called creationists...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

No, that's just what deceived creationists THINK. They also don't even comprehend the difference between the origin of life and evolution and have never once offered a single refutation to a single piece of evidence. Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance.

Your hyperbole is absurd. If you actually think there is not "a single refutation to a single piece of evidence (for evolution)", then this demonstrates your lack of honesty regarding the evidence on the matter. It also demonstrates you have traded objectivity for blind belief.

LOL! Lack of honesty?

talkorigins.org...

I've posted this link hundreds of times here and not once has any evolution denier addressed even ONE THING on the list of evidence. Everything people argue against evolution is based on creationist straw man arguments, not the evidence and research. I already know this link will be completely ignored and blindly dismissed based on weak excuses, because historically, that is what has happened literally every single time it is posted.

5star, go ahead and refute just one piece of evidence on the list. That's all I ask. If you claim evolution is wrong and that I am just brainwashed, refute a single one and prove it instead of just appealing to conjecture and anecdotes.

originally posted by: Barcs

LOL! Lack of honesty?

talkorigins.org...

Yes lack of honesty. You said there is no dissenting evidence against evolution, which is an absurd thing that no self-aware scientist would ever say.

First off, "homology", which is the presence of similar anatomical structures or biochemical patterns among diverse groups of animals, mentioned in your link as proof, by no means proves evolution. Homology would be expected with an intelligent design model as well because you would expect phenotypically similar organisms to have similar biochemistry. Just like you would expect a macbook air to have more similarities with a macbook pro than it would a garage door opener. It's really an expected conclusion regardless of the origin model.

The horse blinders prevent you from seeing other possibilities. If you have a red lens, everything will appear red. But in actuality there are more colors, and more comprehensive views on reality can be obtained when evolutionary theory (the red lens) is thrown away. Yes organisms and populations adapt, but it is unfounded in the scientific research that one kind of organism can change into another kind.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yes lack of honesty. You said there is no dissenting evidence against evolution, which is an absurd thing that no self-aware scientist would ever say.

Let's not talk about honesty when you blatantly lied in the other thread about what I said was proven and what I said was a work in progress. Where is the testable dissenting evidence? Please post it instead of all these anecdotes.

First off, "homology", which is the presence of similar anatomical structures or biochemical patterns among diverse groups of animals, mentioned in your link as proof, by no means proves evolution. Homology would be expected with an intelligent design model as well because you would expect phenotypically similar organisms to have similar biochemistry. Just like you would expect a macbook air to have more similarities with a macbook pro than it would a garage door opener. It's really an expected conclusion regardless of the origin model.

That is one piece of evidence among many. Are you going to actually refute the research? Just stating that it doesn't count based on your warped standards is not good enough. The genetic history is all there in the non coding DNA. There is no way to even pretend to say you know what would be expected with an intelligent designer. What about the fact that we wouldn't see so many design flaws?

The horse blinders prevent you from seeing other possibilities. If you have a red lens, everything will appear red. But in actuality there are more colors, and more comprehensive views on reality can be obtained when evolutionary theory (the red lens) is thrown away. Yes organisms and populations adapt, but it is unfounded in the scientific research that one kind of organism can change into another kind.

No, it's just that every single argument made against evolution is dishonest creationist nonsense that has been refuted for decades. LOL @ using the word "kinds" in biology. Evolution is well backed, you are the one with blinders on. Organisms adapt and change over time and those changes are not limited in any way.