A Nice Explanation of Why "Evolution" is Nonsense

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Read what I wrote: "...from trilobites back to worms..."

Oh,thats even sillier. No, we would not expect to find a continuous line of all species in the fossil record between any two species, much less those composed of only soft tissues.

It's an absurd standard you uttered only because you dont understand any of this. You make up these bizarre standards from ignorance, and then think scientists are wrong for not observing them? It's laughable.

A normal person whose brain is not added by religion would then pause and wonder if, oh just maybe, it's not the people who dedicated their entire lives to studying these fields who are silly and wrong, but instead it's mybe the guy who knows less than nothing factual about any of it and was educated by blogs.

 

[scruffy]

No, that's nonsense, since fossils are very rare. No educated and rational person would dig up a patch of ground, not find a fossil, and therefore declare that the species they were looking for did not exist.

That IS something we can cover with objective statistics.

"Can not rule out the null hypothesis".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh,thats even sillier. No, we would not expect to find a continuous line of all species in the fossil record between any two species, much less those composed of only soft tissues.

You're out of your depth because I never said we expect a continuous line of fossils from worms to trilobites, your position is so weak you must resort to word games, here's what I did say:

Evolution predicts a continuous ancestral chain from trilobites back to to worms

No mention of fossils in that statement. The statement is true, every animal has a parent and that chain is unbroken all the way back. Evolution is predicated on offspring deviating from their parents generation after generation after generation so that over time a descendant arises that is morphologically distinct from the ancestor. My statement is emphasizing the claimed process.

So with that in mind of course I do not expect every specimen to have been fossilized, but I do expect some evidence of continuity given the nature of preservation and the time spans involved.

But with the Cambrian we see no evidence of continuity so why do you believe it? Isn't the "scientist" meant to base their position on evidence?

It's an absurd standard you uttered only because you dont understand any of this. You make up these bizarre standards from ignorance, and then think scientists are wrong for not observing them? It's laughable.

Yes, how unreasonable of me, insisting on evidence before I believe a claim, unlike you who is happy to believe a narrative for its own sake, who cares if there's no evidence.

A normal person whose brain is not added by religion would then pause and wonder if, oh just maybe, it's not the people who dedicated their entire lives to studying these fields who are silly and wrong, but instead it's mybe the guy who knows less than nothing factual about any of it and was educated by blogs.

Squirm all you want, attack strawmen if you must, I refuse to believe a claim without evidence and there's no evidence the Cambrian fauna (which comprises 40+ phylae, very differentiated) developed along the lines claimed by evolutionists.

The Cambrian is evidence in and of itself, evidence that complex morphologies arose almost spontaneously, that's what the evidence shows, but you prefer to reinforce the popular narrative because its the narrative you really value, not the truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution predicts a continuous ancestral chain from trilobites back to to worms, that's a necessary condition if evolution be true. The fossil record has no evidence of such continuity

Liar. You did say this.

This is why I generally avoid you, in these topics. You are not a good faith actor.

You also know less than nothing about evolution and clearly don't want to know anything.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Liar. You did say this.

This is why I generally avoid you, in these topics.

No it isn't, you generally avoid them because you are a poor debater and a charlatan - look:

Does that say a "continuous chain of fossils" I don't think it does, like all fakes you see what you want to see, even reading the original text won't deter you from your fakery.

You are not a good faith actor.

Complain, complain...

You also know less than nothing about evolution and clearly don't want to know anything.

I know there's no fossil evidence for the evolution of the Cambrian fauna and that's all that matters in our little chat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it isn't, you generally avoid them because you are a poor debater and a charlatan - look:

View attachment 1148771

Does that say a "continuous chain of fossils" I don't think it does, like all fakes you see what you want to see, even reading the original text won't deter you from your fakery.

Complain, complain...

I know there's no fossil evidence for the evolution of the Cambrian fauna and that's all that matters in our little chat.

Your crybabying wont help you. Your dishonest behavior wont help you.

What might help you is to learn something about evolution before opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself again.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your crybabying wont help you. Your dishonest behavior wont help you.

What might help you is to learn something about evolution before opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself again.

First you said the sun moves around the earth, then you misquoted me, then you became confused and thought I wrote Trilobites were ancestors of worms when in fact I wrote the opposite.

Given your incompetence in simply discussing a subject it's hardly surprising you stumble and stagger from one embarrassing post to the next all day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Evolution is a wonderful explanation for the living world around us that has no basis in scientific reality. Invoking millions of years and processes unknown and presently not reproducible, scientists simply say that it is a fact and like with the Covid/pangolin nexus, tell you to keep your mouth shut if you think otherwise."

The Biggest Lie of Them All

Exploring the biggest lie: evolution and its impact on belief and society.

townhall.com

Many of us have had similar reactions to the religion of Evolution, a religion that is believed most fervently by people with zero scientific background. This guy has the scientific chops to make the case more forcefully than most people, while stating his rationale in a way that is understandable to any literate reader.

Give it ten minutes; you will be glad you did.

It’s from a religious site, but their science is absolutely settled

 

[scruffy]

It’s from a religious site, but their science is absolutely settled

No science is ever "absolutely settled".

You've become quite desperate in your search for science to justify your faith.

Give up. It'll never happen. You toss around words like "life" as if you know what they mean. But you don't, you don't know.

Your problem is, you don't think like a chemist. You have to think like a chemist, to understand the science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, have the religious zealots managed to watch enough Ken Hamm YouTube videos to upend the most robust scientific theory in history, yet?

No?

Huh, I'll check back later.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No science is ever "absolutely settled".

You've become quite desperate in your search for science to justify your faith.

Give up. It'll never happen. You toss around words like "life" as if you know what they mean. But you don't, you don't know.

Your problem is, you don't think like a chemist. You have to think like a chemist, to understand the science.

Show us the process by which chemistry creates life, creates awareness

 

[the watcher]

I believe that the females have driven most of the evolution changes, that's why men now can't keep their pants up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show us the process by which chemistry creates life, creates awareness

Easy: selection. Selection by physical laws. More stable models persist.

 

[scruffy]

Show us the process by which chemistry creates life, creates awareness

I already did that.

Too lazy to type it all again.

Feel free to use the search feature.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already did that.

So did probably 100 other posters before you.

 

[scruffy]

Easy: selection. Selection by physical laws. More stable models persist.

I told Frank he has to think like a chemist. What do chemists care about? Formulas. And orbitals - as they pertain to "reaction mechanisms".

So two new words for today:

"montmorillonite" is a clay. Its actual formula is

Na0.2Ca0.1Al2Si4O10(OH)2(H2O)10

Google it, and find out why it's important for biophysical evolution.

"stromatolites" are the world's oldest known fossils. They go back 3.5 billion years.

What else do you find around stromatolites? Here's a hint:

Composition and structure of microbial communities from stromatolites of Hamelin Pool in Shark Bay, Western Australia - PubMed

Stromatolites, organosedimentary structures formed by microbial activity, are found throughout the geological record and are important markers of biological history. More conspicuous in the past, stromatolites occur today in a few shallow marine environments, including Hamelin Pool in Shark Bay...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Approximately 10% of the sequences were most closely related to those of alpha-proteobacterial anoxygenic phototrophs."

phototroph = derives energy from sunlight (like many plants, except this is a microbe)

anoxygenic - doesn't use or emit oxygen, doesn't need oxygen, survives well in anoxygenic conditions

Think like a chemist. What are the essentials? Lipid membranes, and sugars. Proteins and nucleos/tides. A source of energy and a way to harness it. How many of these things have we explained? ALL of them, at least in part. Here's a hint:

30: Abiotic Origins of Life

bio.libretexts.org

This work is laborious and takes years. It'll be a little better with some AI in the mix.

Figure: Structure of PV2 protein comprised of a reduced alphabet of mainly prebiotic amino acids

It's the shapes, and combinations of shapes, that get selected for. Some require moving parts, for example a moving arm that can shuttle protons back and forth.

If you're in the business of making proteins you often want lots of them as quickly as possible (the immune system is an example). The more you make, the more things can go wrong. So one of the little loops is going to change shape, or get bigger or smaller, and sometimes it's beneficial and sometimes it isn't.

There are formulas for how many loops can occur and what form they would take. You can use the intensely painful math called "perturbation theory" to chart changes and trajectories.

So phototrophs have a light sensitive subsequence. Think of it like chlorophyll, or a rhodopsin pigment in the retina. It's a quantum mechanism, light (a photon) is interacting with the pigment to create energy. Energy comes in the form of electrons being moved from one place to another.

However direct phototrophy is slow and somewhat inefficient, you only get one electron for one photon, as distinct from say, six at a time.

Growth will always occur in the direction that benefits the organism. There are multiple layers of defense in the way of any exceptions to that rule.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I already did that.

Too lazy to type it all again.

Feel free to use the search feature.

You mean you’re just a random mix of chemicals?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Easy: selection. Selection by physical laws. More stable models persist.

So we’re all just a mix of random chemicals?

 

[GLASNOST]

"A Nice Explanation of Why 'Evolution' is Nonsense"

And the explanation is: The bible says so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean you’re just a random mix of chemicals?

No, and this troll question has been answered for you many, many times.

Selection is not random. Quite the opposite.

You are a bad faith poster.