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

originally posted by: ExiledSpirit777
There's more evidence to prove evolution than there ever has been

This seems to be the most popular defense of evolution. "look at all the evidence", without being able to actually pin-point the particulars. That's how propagandists like it, they want you to believe blindly, and to blindly believe there is so much evidence for it. I don't blame you, we've had evolution hammered into our heads from a very young age. But name a part that you think is substantial evidence for evolution and I can show you why it's nonsense. I've studied it most of my professional career and every single aspect of the "evidence" is a house of cards.

Want me to prove to you evolution exists? You were but a spec in your fathers nutsack at one point. Yet, you are now typing on an electronic device arguing that God created everything.

There is no possible mechanisms that could have evolved an organism from asexual to sexual reproduction. You would need random chance mutations to be able to simultaneously create a male and a female sex cell that would be compatible with each other. The odds of a beneficial mutation are:

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
source

And this is just the odds of making one successful alteration to a protein sub-unit. in order for an organism to emerge from asexual to sexual reproduction would require these odds to hit countless times to create both the male and female sex cells and the necessary components that allow it to persist. There is no possibility for intermediate forms, because if the asexual organism grew male sex cells first, it would die off immediately because there are no female sex cells to receive it. And again, even the most basic parts of generating cells that create sperm is astronomically unfathomable for random chance to create, let alone the necessity of simultaneously creating a complementary female sex cell.

Therefore, Biological life requires a Logical Creator.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Randyvine2

And I could post all the scientific evidence possible and it wouldn't sway you one bit. Even if there are hilarious evolutionary things happening like Island Syndrome.

People are 3 feet tall and pigeons stop flying.

Short humans are still humans, and giant "southern Cassowary" are still "southern Cassowary". My tomato plants thrive in my yard, but they wouldn't in more arid regions of the earth, does that mean they are evolving? No way. Certain conditions allow extremes within a population. Allele drift is a real mechanism that allows populations to adapt to environments, but allele drift cannot account for the change of a population of organisms into a distinctly new kind of organism. The reason being is that allele drift only uses genes that are already present in the genome, so it could not form a new kind of organism.

Allele drift is the same mechanism responsible for the emergence of Caucasians in northward latitudes. Caucasians are still humans, and will always be humans because these adaptive mechanisms cannot change an organism into a distinctly new organism. They tried to do so with E. Coli, in which 73,000 generations of artificial selection were done to try to evolve the organism. Surely enough it is still E. Coli despite 73,000 generations of selective pressure. 73,000 generations is equivalent to 1.5 million years of hominid "evolution". This shows that populations of organisms can not change into distinctly new organisms through adaptation mechanisms.

It's the same thing with antibiotic resistance, the epigenetic mechanisms that causes the resistance reverts back to normalcy once the antibiotic is removed from the medium (source). Literally every supposed evidence for evolution is a grasp at straws due to the lack of real evidence that evolution is possible. Adaptation happens daily, but it can only do what is pre-supposed in the genome, it cannot turn the population of organisms into a distinctly new organism.

originally posted by: Degradation33

Stellar nurseries are also the birthplace of the amino acids that spread the seeds of organic life throughout the universe on balls of ice. That's awesome. So freaking organic.

Even if that data is true, glycine is only an amino acid. The main difficulty for life to emerge is the polymerization of amino acids into protein chains. The reason this is so difficult is because protein chains spontaneously dissociate in water over time. Amino acids polymerizing in water is highly unfavorable, this is necessarily so for our earth to function so that dead organisms decay back into component parts (otherwise we would be getting random amorphous blobs of proteins and DNA randomly emerging all over the place).

Because primordial ooze does not turn into a human therefore trillions of simultaneous mutations aren't required.

That is kind of the whole point of evolution in that it describes the mechanism by which different forms of life appear without one spontaneously turning into another completely different one.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because primordial ooze does not turn into a human therefore trillions of simultaneous mutations aren't required.
.

You would still need many mutations to make one functional change in the organism. Mutations can only change genetic sequence, and to make a biological change there would usually need to be many changes to that genetic sequence to make such a drastic difference on the protein. And then the dilemma is that whatever function that mutated gene used to code for is now gone!

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

Maybe all life in the universe?

Amino acids were found in a comets tail. Confirmed panspermia.

Amino acids form in dense interstellar clouds before the stars

Stellar nurseries are also the birthplace of the amino acids that spread the seeds of organic life throughout the universe on balls of ice. That's awesome. So freaking organic.

** And if you want to retain divinity you can marvel even more at the almighty power to program a universe to go from inflation to stellar formation to organic life clinging to balls of dirt everywhere.

Pretty ingenious and simple code too. 12 elementary paricle/anti particle pairs. (6 lepton/6 quarks), 6 bosons (if you count the graviton), and critical temperature thresholds for phase change. With that it can build upon itself in layers of complexity.

Thats an interesting article and does help explain how life could've first started...

“The important conclusion from this work is that molecules that are considered building blocks of life already form at a stage that is well before the start of star and planet formation,” said senior author Dr. Harold Linnartz, Director of the Laboratory for Astrophysics at Leiden Observatory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because primordial ooze does not turn into a human therefore trillions of simultaneous mutations aren't required.
.

You would still need many mutations to make one functional change in the organism. Mutations can only change genetic sequence, and to make a biological change there would usually need to be many changes to that genetic sequence to make such a drastic difference on the protein. And then the dilemma is that whatever function that mutated gene used to code for is now gone!

Tiny changes over long periods of time.

No need for trillions of simultaneous changes as was claimed.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Tiny changes over long periods of time.

Gradual accumulation wouldn't work for the emergence of sexual reproduction. If asexuality evolved into sexuality it would have to do so one random mutation at a time, so it would not be able to create both male and female with gradual accumulation. Sexual reproduction wouldn't work if there was only one type of sex cell. For that reason it could not have been gradual. Tiny changes could not have made this leap, as well as most other biological functions that rely on other aspects of the body to function.

No need for trillions of simultaneous changes as was claimed.

That one in 10 vigintillion number was the odds of any beneficial mutation occurring at all. Let alone the right mutation needed for the desired new function. Let alone the multiple successes that would be required to change a protein drastically enough to generate a new function. Yet sex cell formation would be far more complex than simply change a few protein sequences. That's why evolution is obsolete.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Amino acids were found in a comets tail. Confirmed panspermia.

Thas an interesting article and does help explain how life could've first started...

One of the difficulties is that amino acids on a comet would be boiled off in the atmosphere from the plasma plume. Plasma plumes on comets can reach 20,000 degrees C, whereas the boiling point of glycine for example is only 250 degrees C. Even if amino acids did get to earth, they wouldn't be able to create amino acid chains (proteins) in water because it's thermodynamically unfavorable.

There's too many hurdles for random chance to have overcome, intelligent design is the far more likely option.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Tiny changes over long periods of time.

No need for trillions of simultaneous changes as was claimed.

Gradual accumulation wouldn't work for the emergence of sexual reproduction. If asexuality evolved into sexuality it would have to do so one random mutation at a time, so it would not be able to create both male and female with gradual accumulation. Sexual reproduction wouldn't work if there was only one type of sex cell. For that reason it could not have been gradual. Tiny changes could not have made this leap, as well as most other biological functions that rely on other aspects of the body to function.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Amino acids were found in a comets tail. Confirmed panspermia.

Thas an interesting article and does help explain how life could've first started...

One of the difficulties is that amino acids on a comet would be boiled off in the atmosphere from the plasma plume. Plasma plumes on comets can reach 20,000 degrees C, whereas the boiling point of glycine for example is only 250 degrees C. Even if amino acids did get to earth, they wouldn't be able to create amino acid chains (proteins) in water because it's thermodynamically unfavorable.

There's too many hurdles for random chance to have overcome, intelligent design is the far more likely option.

There isn't any reason why distinct sexes wouldn't evolve.

www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

There isn't any reason why distinct sexes wouldn't evolve.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Even a hermaphrodite emerging from an asexual organism would still need to randomly mutate both male and female parts simultaneously to reproduce.... which falls in the same dilemma of how both would have come to be through random chance mutations, since it could not have come to be gradually. There's not even a known mechanism of how mutating the genome and getting new proteins would even be able to orchestrate such a change. And again, the old genes that were used as the template for the new genes are now gone... The whole theory at every turn doesn't stand the test of scrutiny. Here's my favorite quote from your link:

"These early stages are not completely understood because the majority of animal species developed into the arguably less titillating separate-sex state too long ago for scientists to observe the transition."

It's faith-based.

a reply to: cooperton

I'd say the sexes arrived on the scene when the plants stage was reached.
Plants can have both sexes in one specimen. Or seperated. And since plants can also procreate by cloning themselves, they cover everything needed to propell that stage of evolution.

OP transcended this reality.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

I'd say the sexes arrived on the scene when the plants stage was reached.
Plants can have both sexes in one specimen. Or seperated. And since plants can also procreate by cloning themselves, they cover everything needed to propell that stage of evolution.

But the problem is getting to the two-sex stage. As an asexual organism you replicate without sexual reproduction. For an asexual organism to evolve into a sexually reproductive hermaphrodite (both sexes in one specimen) would still require that both male and female parts evolve simultaneously. Given the difficulty in even getting one type of sex cell to emerge, it would be even more unfathomable to get two compatible male and female sex cells to emerge simultaneously. People often underestimate the profound biochemical changes that would be required to give a biological organism all the tools necessary for sexual reproduction. And given that it could not have been gradual, due to a male sex part being erroneous with the female, it requires a miraculous super mutation that caused both to emerge at once. Such a thing is beyond plausibility, we can't even get an E. Coli strain to evolve into anything else besides E. Coli, let alone have some new emergent function by random chance.

a reply to: cooperton

The answer is: PLANTS

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

The answer is: PLANTS

But, according to the theory, animals did not evolve from plants. Imagine making a microscopic cell from scratch that develops into a fully matured parent that can then repeat the process by making more reproducible reproductive cells. Intelligent humans can't make such a thing, yet we want to believe random chance could do better?

originally posted by: Lysergic
OP transcended this reality.

hahaha I noticed that

a reply to: cooperton

Well then make someone rewrite the theory. Because the answer is plants.
Not our nowadays plants, primitive ones but maybe a little more complicated than algae. Proto-Mushrooms might work.

And stop with the random and chance. I tried to explain that a lot to you before, there's no doubt a long subtle causality chain at work, but we can't access that, so to us it seems random. But in reality there is no true randomness.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Well then make someone rewrite the theory. Because the answer is plants.
Not our nowadays plants, primitive ones but maybe a little more complicated than algae. Proto-Mushrooms might work.

You'll believe a plant can gradually become a human over time through random chance, but vehemently oppose the idea that an Intelligent Force could have made humans?

But in reality there is no true randomness.

So it's intelligent and guided?

a reply to: cooperton

You'll believe a plant can gradually become a human over time through random chance,

No.

vehemently oppose the idea that an Intelligent Force could have made humans?

Yes.

So it's intelligent and guided?

No dynamic, fluid, interconnected and organic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

There isn't any reason why distinct sexes wouldn't evolve.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Even a hermaphrodite emerging from an asexual organism would still need to randomly mutate both male and female parts simultaneously to reproduce.... which falls in the same dilemma of how both would have come to be through random chance mutations, since it could not have come to be gradually. There's not even a known mechanism of how mutating the genome and getting new proteins would even be able to orchestrate such a change. And again, the old genes that were used as the template for the new genes are now gone... The whole theory at every turn doesn't stand the test of scrutiny. Here's my favorite quote from your link:

"These early stages are not completely understood because the majority of animal species developed into the arguably less titillating separate-sex state too long ago for scientists to observe the transition."

It's faith-based.

Not completely understood does not mean that God did it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Not completely understood does not mean that God did it.

Not completely understood does not mean that evolution did it.

originally posted by: Peeple
But in reality there is no true randomness.

So it's intelligent and guided?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Well then make someone rewrite the theory. Because the answer is plants.
Not our nowadays plants, primitive ones but maybe a little more complicated than algae. Proto-Mushrooms might work.

You'll believe a plant can gradually become a human over time through random chance, but vehemently oppose the idea that an Intelligent Force could have made humans?

But in reality there is no true randomness.

So it's intelligent and guided?

What made your inteligent force?