Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: cooperton

It doesn't require design, adaptation is enough.

a reply to: cooperton

The chapter I primarily quoted from in my first comment in this thread has a section on horses, in the part I skipped in my first comment because we've probably gone through it on this subforum a couple of times already and the type of examples of supposed (evidence for) horse evolution and whale evolution given by Kurokage don't change the facts/realities/truths already admitted to in this section that I did quote (I'll add the section about horses now):

Letting the Fossil Record Speak

...

New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠33​—Italics added.

This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”⁠34

Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠35

What About the Horse?

However, it has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia states: “Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.”⁠36 Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really support this?

The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line.”⁠37 In other words, nowhere does the fossil evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large horse. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: “Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all​—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush.”⁠38 [whereislogic: funny, did you notice Eohippus was still included in Berkeley's storyline? The source that Kurokage used.]

Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable says: “It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal.” But do the facts support this assumption? “The fossil species of [Eohippus] show little evidence of evolutionary modification,” answers the book. It thus concedes, regarding the fossil record: “It fails to document the full history of the horse family.”⁠39

So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one. And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family.

...

The storyline regarding whale evolution is even funnier, it has Mr. Teapot involved in telling it (3:52):

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

It doesn't require design, adaptation is enough.

How does ATP synthase come to be by adaptation if it is a necessity of even the most rudimentary lifeform? ATP synthase is coded for by about 15,000 DNA monomers. These 15,000 DNA monomers would have to assemble themselves in water to form a functioning ATP synthase. The problem is that DNA subunits do not polymerize in water, they dissociate in water. This is why catalysis is needed in a cell for protein synthesis. Therefore without enzymes to catalyze the formation of ATP synthase, it could not be formed. And without ATP synthase, the enzymes don't have energy to conduct this process anyway.

This is why evolution and abiogenesis are impossible. It's the chicken or the egg paradox over and over again. Way too many hurdles, and way too many thermodynamic laws have to be violated for it to be possible.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

If we plopped out of the flask of some creator we wouldn't share anything at all.
But while what you say is true we have to consider hundreds of millions of years seperating us. So from the parts we share, 40 % are identical.
That is good enough to prove evolution.

Or it could be good enough to prove a Common Designer.

With a "Universe Z" patent.

You people and your silly religions.

a reply to: cooperton
Coop,
They don't get it.
The suffer from a form of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.
They can not bring themselves to admit that with all of our knowledge, with all of our accomplishments, all we know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge we have yet to learn.

originally posted by: whereislogic

5:08 onward is an absolute hammer against evolution... People don't realize these scientists are being purposefully misleading to keep the grant money coming.

a reply to: Kurokage

I tagged you too Kuro because this is the kind of deception from scientists that I was talking about

This is why initial investigation into evolution makes it seem like it's true. But further analysis shows it's a house of cards

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: cooperton
Coop,
They don't get it.
The suffer from a form of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.
They can not bring themselves to admit that with all of our knowledge, with all of our accomplishments, all we know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge we have yet to learn.

It's a microscopic motor though!! How can anyone even appease the idea this came to be by random chance?!?!

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: cooperton
Coop,
They don't get it.
The suffer from a form of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.
They can not bring themselves to admit that with all of our knowledge, with all of our accomplishments, all we know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge we have yet to learn.

Then clearly you're not in a position to be condescending or superior in your present philosophy about the nature of existence and human destiny.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic

5:08 onward is an absolute hammer against evolution... People don't realize these scientists are being purposefully misleading to keep the grant money coming.

a reply to: Kurokage

I tagged you too Kuro because this is the kind of deception from scientists that I was talking about

This is why initial investigation into evolution makes it seem like it's true. But further analysis shows it's a house of cards

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: cooperton
Coop,
They don't get it.
The suffer from a form of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.
They can not bring themselves to admit that with all of our knowledge, with all of our accomplishments, all we know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge we have yet to learn.

It's a microscopic motor though!! How can anyone even appease the idea this came to be by random chance?!?!

What you're asserting makes no sense, in the same way depopulation makes no sense. History provides countless examples of cult ideology taking in literal billions of revenue in any currency you care to name. There's no profit in secular science, only cold apathetic data that informs a less than reassuring and optimistic conclusion based on those numbers. There's no industry in dismantling the church, not even a little bit.

The walls of gibberish really lower your IQ if you read them in their entirety.

originally posted by: cooperton

5:08 onward is an absolute hammer against evolution...

Reminds me of the quote from Francis Hitching used in one of the articles on page 9: “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.”⁠ Although he was talking about other important places and other gaps, the situation concerning the "missing"* crucial evidence in regards to the accompanying evolutionary storyline is similarly "curious", or shall we say, telling. (*: quoting from the video shortly after 5:08 there, the word that made me think of that Hitching quote)

a reply to: cooperton

No, because the Earth was all different, much more pressure and heat, or energy if you will available to start reactions that wouldn't in our standard environment.
Plus I am not going to deny in Earth's specific case: if water was transported here, so probably was the Seed of Life.
That's far from creation even if it might have a plan and a destination, or a purpose.

a reply to: Quadrivium

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: cooperton
Coop,
They don't get it.
The suffer from a form of the Dunning/Kruger Effect.
They can not bring themselves to admit that with all of our knowledge, with all of our accomplishments, all we know is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge we have yet to learn.

Then clearly you're not in a position to be condescending or superior in your present philosophy about the nature of existence and human destiny.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

No, because the Earth was all different, much more pressure and heat, or energy if you will available to start reactions that wouldn't in our standard environment.

More pressure and heat would only amplify the decomposition rate of protein and DNA chains.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Then clearly you're not in a position to be condescending or superior in your present philosophy about the nature of existence and human destiny.

Have you considered he might be right and that you're not a mutant progeny accident and there's an enduring purpose for our consciousness?

originally posted by: Ohanka
The walls of gibberish really lower your IQ if you read them in their entirety.

What specifically do you disagree with?

a reply to: cooperton

No. There are little one-cell-beings that are proving that wrong too. Extremophiles.
Those have had to be the dominant species for quite some time.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

No. There are little one-cell-beings that are proving that wrong too. Extremophiles.
Those have had to be the dominant species for quite some time.

But the proteins that persist in them could not have formed in water without enzymatic catalysis that is created by the extremophile. The more you learn about biology the more impossible evolution becomes. The reason added heat and pressure would make proteins and DNA molecules decompose faster is because higher heat means more kinetic collisions per second and therefore it amplifies the favored reaction direction, which in the case of DNA and proteins in water is decomposition

Turn up the heat on a boiling pot filled with vegetables and you'll see what I mean. The organic matter decomposes faster.

a reply to: cooperton

Have you considered he might be right and that you're not a mutant progeny accident and there's an enduring purpose for our consciousness?

I have. I've also discovered there are many opportunities for a person who sets aside or completely disables their skeptical reflexes and accepts without question everything they read on the internet. I need more than just lazy emotional appeal fallacies to convince me that your purpose is better than my purpose.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
better than my purpose.

what is your purpose?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
better than my purpose.

what is your purpose?

Build my cozy little acre of heaven on earth so there's no fear of the afterlife doing me dirty. A good death is it's own reward.

...

On the campus of a large university, a student cited the “fossil record” as proof for evolution. He said that it “traces [for example] the evolution of modern horses from eohippus. Progressive fossils show how it lost toes, lengthened wrists and ankles, evolved new teeth for grazing, and increased in size.”

“You must know,” I replied, “that to give this neat picture, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.” [whereislogic: which reminds me of a quote by a British paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the journal Nature, Henry Gee, used in the article Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

And yet, that's exactly what they're doing, time and time again, including in articles published by the journal Nature, which have been given their stamp of approval by its senior editor, Henry Gee, to give the public the impression of proper peer review. Let's get back to this conversation that I was sharing...]

“They only simplify it to avoid confusion,” the student said.

I replied: “To avoid confusion they conceal the evidence, and in simplifying they oversimplify to the point of falsification.” [whereislogic: which reminds me of the quote from the article about propaganda that I used earlier in this thread concerning: "They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths." Also regarding the earlier mention of: "They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other."]

Indeed, that is just what Simpson says, that ‘the oversimplification of the horse fossil record amounts to falsification.’ And naturalist I. Sanderson writes:

“This pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structures, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion.

“So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved.”

However, the fossil record is still evolution’s “star witness.” As Simpson tells us, “The most direct sort of evidence on the truth of evolution must, after all, be provided by the fossil record.”

...

Source (apart from my remarks in between of course in case anyone didn't notice them): Do I Have to Believe Evolution? (Awake!—1974)

a reply to: whereislogic

You don't have to believe in evolution. You don't have to do anything that contradicts your ethics, because it's your prerogative to choose a lifestyle and creed that guarantees your success. On the same principle, what do you gain by attempting to puncture and deflate evolutionary theory for those who derive their success from it?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

You don't have to believe in evolution. You don't have to do anything that contradicts your ethics, because it's your prerogative to choose a lifestyle and creed that guarantees your success. On the same principle, what do you gain by attempting to puncture and deflate evolutionary theory for those who derive their success from it?

If evolution is false then it has misled countless individuals into a nihilistic frame of mind. Evolution acts as an answer to the question of where we came from, and it strongly implies that we came from unintelligent random chance. For many people this strips their pursuit of truth, but in all fairness so does blind belief in anything.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Build my cozy little acre of heaven on earth so there's no fear of the afterlife doing me dirty. A good death is it's own reward.

A wholesome life is a good preparation, whether you believe in the afterlife or not.