Evolutionists' theory in detail

[LittleNipper]

Perhaps this will bring understanding to the masses as to why some people are not convinced that Darwin Evolutionists are not merely secular fanatics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Perhaps this will bring understanding to the masses as to why some people are not convinced that Darwin Evolutionists are not merely secular fanatics.

Hello there, ya nut.

Hey, give us all a good laugh and summarize the theory of evolution, in your own words. Be somewhat specific.

 

[Hawkins]

"It just happened."

To say that water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen is always falsifiable.
To say that <A> evolves into <B> is never falsifiable. (where you can put whatever as A and B, out of the billions of living organisms on earth.

So if a theory doesn't fit for the billions of living organisms, this theory 1) is not a science, and 2) it must be a joke.

Just to name a few example,

Birds (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
Rats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no again, this is never falsifiable
cats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
....
....

till you have compiled a full list of all the billions of living organisms ever existed on earth, you may notice that the theory makes none ever falsifiable in order to be called a science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"It just happened."

To say that water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen is always falsifiable.
To say that <A> evolves into <B> is never falsifiable. (where you can put whatever as A and B, out of the billions of living organisms on earth.

So if a theory doesn't fit for the billions of living organisms, this theory 1) is not a science, and 2) it must be a joke.

Just to name a few example,

Birds (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
Rats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no again, this is never falsifiable
cats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
....
....

till you have compiled a full list of all the billions of living organisms ever existed on earth, you may notice that the theory makes none ever falsifiable in order to be called a science.

Haha, dumbest thing i ever read.

 

[zaangalewa]

"It just happened."

Yes, many claim the Big Bang came from nothing - violating both the law of conservation of matter and energy and the scientific observation of cause and effect.,

Explain me why something exists at all. Why is not only nothing?

 

[Newtonian]

"It just happened."

To say that water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen is always falsifiable.
To say that <A> evolves into <B> is never falsifiable. (where you can put whatever as A and B, out of the billions of living organisms on earth.

So if a theory doesn't fit for the billions of living organisms, this theory 1) is not a science, and 2) it must be a joke.

Just to name a few example,

Birds (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
Rats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no again, this is never falsifiable
cats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
....
....

till you have compiled a full list of all the billions of living organisms ever existed on earth, you may notice that the theory makes none ever falsifiable in order to be called a science.

I get your point - but your point about water reminds me of one of the points as to why formic acid predominated in the famous experiment by Miller-Urey where some amino acids were produced but only Alanine and Glycine in fairly high proportion (lower proportion than formic acid). Just that statement alone is falsifiable, since similar type experiments have produced similar results.

But the point about water is one of the main points chemical evolutionists suppress:

Water reacts with HCN which is considered a very important first step in the synthesis of Amino acids!

Specifically HCN (hydrogen cyanide) + water (H20) yields formamide (HCONH2=H3CON)
HCONH2 + H2O yields Formic acid (HCOOH) + ammonia (NH3).

This simple basic (actually acidic) reaction is almost always suppressed by chemical evolutionists since it ends the first step in chemical reaction pathways to amino acid polymerization.

In fact, many chemical evolutionists tout water as necessary for the origin of life whereas water is a very important destructive factor for the origin of life. Reaction with water is one of a number of interfering cross reactions that end steps towards amino acids and then towards polymerization to dipeptides to polypeptides.

They deceive the public because we know water is necessary for the survival of life - but the opposite is the case for the origin of life.

An example of this is how fast foods can spoil, or garments can decay, when constantly wet. This is why some amino acids require a dry environment - some even requiring condensing agents! Note, however, that some amino acids do prefer a wet environment for synthesis. In fact: [Note that I am not suppressing facts]:

Different amino acids predominate in wet vs dry, hot vs. cold, acid vs base (etc) environments. And these variant environments cannot exist in the same place at the same time.

Note: Some evolutionists tout formamide as important for amino acid synthesis but they also suppress the fact that formamide reacts with water to produce formic acid.

Easily falsifiable, btw. But true, not false.

Bottom line - the need for an intelligent chemist to produce life from non-living matter is falsifiable not only as a whole but also in each step required for the increasingly complex (and less stable) molecules on possible chemical reaction pathways towards life. For example: selection is required. Another example - information input is required - otherwise one would end up with statistical proteins not informational proteins.

I should also note that humans are intelligent creators and they cannot create life. They can't even bring back the information lost at death that stops complex molecules from performing the functions required for life!

I should mention [not wanting to suppress relevant facts] that human creators can and have produced very complex computers and robots as in AI. However, these also require information input - computers cannot be produced by chance.

Edit: Computers do not like water either!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

xplain me why something exists at all

Because unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension. Duh.

 

[jwoodie]

Ban dihydrogen monoxide!

 

[zaangalewa]

xplain me why something exists at all

Because unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension. Duh.

I never will understand why so many people in the world like to be the enemies of unicorns.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

And your parents evolved from what exactly and how?

All humans evolved from single celled creatures.

Mathematically impossible

 

[Hollie]

"It just happened."

To say that water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen is always falsifiable.
To say that <A> evolves into <B> is never falsifiable. (where you can put whatever as A and B, out of the billions of living organisms on earth.

So if a theory doesn't fit for the billions of living organisms, this theory 1) is not a science, and 2) it must be a joke.

Just to name a few example,

Birds (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
Rats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no again, this is never falsifiable
cats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
....
....

till you have compiled a full list of all the billions of living organisms ever existed on earth, you may notice that the theory makes none ever falsifiable in order to be called a science.

I get your point - but your point about water reminds me of one of the points as to why formic acid predominated in the famous experiment by Miller-Urey where some amino acids were produced but only Alanine and Glycine in fairly high proportion (lower proportion than formic acid). Just that statement alone is falsifiable, since similar type experiments have produced similar results.

But the point about water is one of the main points chemical evolutionists suppress:

Water reacts with HCN which is considered a very important first step in the synthesis of Amino acids!

Specifically HCN (hydrogen cyanide) + water (H20) yields formamide (HCONH2=H3CON)
HCONH2 + H2O yields Formic acid (HCOOH) + ammonia (NH3).

This simple basic (actually acidic) reaction is almost always suppressed by chemical evolutionists since it ends the first step in chemical reaction pathways to amino acid polymerization.

In fact, many chemical evolutionists tout water as necessary for the origin of life whereas water is a very important destructive factor for the origin of life. Reaction with water is one of a number of interfering cross reactions that end steps towards amino acids and then towards polymerization to dipeptides to polypeptides.

They deceive the public because we know water is necessary for the survival of life - but the opposite is the case for the origin of life.

An example of this is how fast foods can spoil, or garments can decay, when constantly wet. This is why some amino acids require a dry environment - some even requiring condensing agents! Note, however, that some amino acids do prefer a wet environment for synthesis. In fact: [Note that I am not suppressing facts]:

Different amino acids predominate in wet vs dry, hot vs. cold, acid vs base (etc) environments. And these variant environments cannot exist in the same place at the same time.

Note: Some evolutionists tout formamide as important for amino acid synthesis but they also suppress the fact that formamide reacts with water to produce formic acid.

Easily falsifiable, btw. But true, not false.

Bottom line - the need for an intelligent chemist to produce life from non-living matter is falsifiable not only as a whole but also in each step required for the increasingly complex (and less stable) molecules on possible chemical reaction pathways towards life. For example: selection is required. Another example - information input is required - otherwise one would end up with statistical proteins not informational proteins.

I should also note that humans are intelligent creators and they cannot create life. They can't even bring back the information lost at death that stops complex molecules from performing the functions required for life!

I should mention [not wanting to suppress relevant facts] that human creators can and have produced very complex computers and robots as in AI. However, these also require information input - computers cannot be produced by chance.

Edit: Computers do not like water either!

I think the mistake made by religionist supernaturalists is that the narratives they read on creationist websites is formed to appeal to a predefined conclusion.

Denigrating science does nothing to prove “the gawds did it”. And, using the opinions of those who appeal to predefined conclusions when those at creationist websites offer no peer reviewed data to support their opinions tends to diminish the opinions of the religionist supernaturalists.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

And your parents evolved from what exactly and how?

All humans evolved from single celled creatures.

Mathematically impossible

Nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"It just happened."

To say that water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen is always falsifiable.
To say that <A> evolves into <B> is never falsifiable. (where you can put whatever as A and B, out of the billions of living organisms on earth.

So if a theory doesn't fit for the billions of living organisms, this theory 1) is not a science, and 2) it must be a joke.

Just to name a few example,

Birds (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
Rats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no again, this is never falsifiable
cats (B) are evolved from a single cell organism (A) <---- oh no, this is never falsifiable
....
....

till you have compiled a full list of all the billions of living organisms ever existed on earth, you may notice that the theory makes none ever falsifiable in order to be called a science.

I get your point - but your point about water reminds me of one of the points as to why formic acid predominated in the famous experiment by Miller-Urey where some amino acids were produced but only Alanine and Glycine in fairly high proportion (lower proportion than formic acid). Just that statement alone is falsifiable, since similar type experiments have produced similar results.

But the point about water is one of the main points chemical evolutionists suppress:

Water reacts with HCN which is considered a very important first step in the synthesis of Amino acids!

Specifically HCN (hydrogen cyanide) + water (H20) yields formamide (HCONH2=H3CON)
HCONH2 + H2O yields Formic acid (HCOOH) + ammonia (NH3).

This simple basic (actually acidic) reaction is almost always suppressed by chemical evolutionists since it ends the first step in chemical reaction pathways to amino acid polymerization.

In fact, many chemical evolutionists tout water as necessary for the origin of life whereas water is a very important destructive factor for the origin of life. Reaction with water is one of a number of interfering cross reactions that end steps towards amino acids and then towards polymerization to dipeptides to polypeptides.

They deceive the public because we know water is necessary for the survival of life - but the opposite is the case for the origin of life.

An example of this is how fast foods can spoil, or garments can decay, when constantly wet. This is why some amino acids require a dry environment - some even requiring condensing agents! Note, however, that some amino acids do prefer a wet environment for synthesis. In fact: [Note that I am not suppressing facts]:

Different amino acids predominate in wet vs dry, hot vs. cold, acid vs base (etc) environments. And these variant environments cannot exist in the same place at the same time.

Note: Some evolutionists tout formamide as important for amino acid synthesis but they also suppress the fact that formamide reacts with water to produce formic acid.

Easily falsifiable, btw. But true, not false.

Bottom line - the need for an intelligent chemist to produce life from non-living matter is falsifiable not only as a whole but also in each step required for the increasingly complex (and less stable) molecules on possible chemical reaction pathways towards life. For example: selection is required. Another example - information input is required - otherwise one would end up with statistical proteins not informational proteins.

I should also note that humans are intelligent creators and they cannot create life. They can't even bring back the information lost at death that stops complex molecules from performing the functions required for life!

I should mention [not wanting to suppress relevant facts] that human creators can and have produced very complex computers and robots as in AI. However, these also require information input - computers cannot be produced by chance.

Edit: Computers do not like water either!

I think the mistake made by religionist supernaturalists is that the narratives they read on creationist websites is formed to appeal to a predefined conclusion.

Denigrating science does nothing to prove “the gawds did it”. And, using the opinions of those who appeal to predefined conclusions when those at creationist websites offer no peer reviewed data to support their opinions tends to diminish the opinions of the religionist supernaturalists.

Accounting.

The odds of 2,000 proteins magically forming the first single cell at random are mathematically prohibitive

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mathematically impossible

Wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The odds of 2,000 proteins magically forming the first single cell at random are mathematically prohibitive

Show your math. So we can laugh at you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The odds of 2,000 proteins magically forming the first single cell at random are mathematically prohibitive

Show your math. So we can laugh at you.

Each of the 2,000 proteins has to occupy an EXACT spot at an EXACT time.

You cannot have a few or most of the proteins in their required spot to have a functioning cell.

Still laughing?

Also, proteins forming in an orderly fashion runs contrary to entropy! It's the EXACT opposite of what should happen according to chance

Still laughing?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Each of the 2,000 proteins has to occupy an EXACT spot at an EXACT time.

So?

Also, proteins forming in an orderly fashion runs contrary to entropy!

No it doesn't. Increasing entropy holds for the universe as a whole. But localized order can occur. That's how we have proteins in the first place. Duh, Francis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Each of the 2,000 proteins has to occupy an EXACT spot at an EXACT time.

So?

Also, proteins forming in an orderly fashion runs contrary to entropy!

No it doesn't. Increasing entropy holds for the universe as a whole. But localized order can occur. That's how we have proteins in the first place. Duh, Francis.

So? LOL

How do you have a functioning cell unless ALL of the EXACT proteins work together at the EXACT same time?

Do you believe that there were half finished "cells" and they kept on banging into proteins? It's ridiculous!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Each of the 2,000 proteins has to occupy an EXACT spot at an EXACT time.

So?

Also, proteins forming in an orderly fashion runs contrary to entropy!

No it doesn't. Increasing entropy holds for the universe as a whole. But localized order can occur. That's how we have proteins in the first place. Duh, Francis.

As I've said, the ODDS of have localized syntropy overcoming entropy to the degree necessary to orderly assemble even the first cell is literally off the charts

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you have a functioning cell unless ALL of the EXACT proteins work together at the EXACT same time?

What's your point? A tiger wont "work" with its head cut off, either. You're talking gibberish.

Do you believe that there were half finished "cells"

No, i believe there were proto cells. Before that, clumps pf proteins. You actually didnt know what scientists think came before the first cell? Ok, just admit it, you have never read a goddamn thing about this topic. You shouldn't even be commenting.