Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Yes I've often heard that but I beg to differ. Evolution cannot take place until we have cells and cells require proteins but proteins are always mechanically assembled (by ribosomes using DNA (mRNA) to direct the synthesis) that assembly process is done inside cells though.

So life can only come from life, this is the most established law in biology the law of biogenesis. The evidence for that law far exceeds the evidence for evolution yet biologists claim its not really a law, that cells can arise without another cell existing first.

To decouple the two is insincere IMHO, evolution requires cells and cells are extremely complex nano-machines that cannot come from anything other than another cell.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant.

Scientists have already created brand new species in the laboratory. It's old news.
Right and so that's not nature working, it's human minds. Just because I can make a table and chairs doesn't mean that tables and chairs could eventually appear in nature without human intervention. We know humans can create, that's what we do.
Your objection is moot.
 
"For example, if I assume that all cats are tricolored and know that tricolored cats are almost always female, then I can conclude: almost all cats are female. Even if the logical reasoning is correct, this of course does not hold. For the very assumption that all cats are tricolored is false. If one makes statements about observable things in our environment, such as cats, one can verify them by scientific investigations. But if it is about the proof of a divine existence, the matter becomes a little more complicated."

great quote

False logic
 
No. Do you know about punctuated equilibrium?
Oh look. A term I used twice in the last few hours just entered ding's vocabulary!
Who's the intellect?
noblesse oblige!
`
 
Last edited:
Anyone truly wondering about this (and people should always wonder) I'd recommend this talk by James Tour, one of the most cited living scientists and an authority on nano-technology and synthetic chemistry. At one point he asks if there are any synthetic chemists in the audience and a few hands go up, he then tell those people to stand up and interrupt if they hear him saying anything that's untrue.

He begins by summarizing the kinds of chemistry and materials science projects he and his team work on, just top give the audience an idea of the problem domains he works in.

View attachment 993979

Fast forward to 08:10 if you want to skip his summary of his work.
A brilliant man I'm sure but he makes a fundamental mistake, one so obvious that even I can see it. If I can see it I wonder why he doesn't. Because he doesn't want to maybe?
At 10:00 he claims that evolution starts with a cell. Obviously false since the first cells were almost certainly the product of several billion years of evolution. Almost the end, not the beginning. To be subject to evolution, something must only be able to grow and reproduce. There are plenty of simple inorganic molecules that can do that.
 
Last edited:
At 10:00 he claims that evolution starts with a cell.
What living thing existed and was evolving prior to the first cell? Or do you suppose long chains of inanimate organic molecules are living?
 
"For example, if I assume that all cats are tricolored and know that tricolored cats are almost always female, then I can conclude: almost all cats are female. Even if the logical reasoning is correct, this of course does not hold. For the very assumption that all cats are tricolored is false. If one makes statements about observable things in our environment, such as cats, one can verify them by scientific investigations. But if it is about the proof of a divine existence, the matter becomes a little more complicated."

great quote

False logic
Didn't you already admit you don't know science?
 
Your butt still hurts?
That's quite a leap in logic. Is that your usual response when someone repeats what you have previously admitted?

Would my butt be hurting if I said you had quite the number of medical infirmities? Or would I just be restating what you already admitted?
 
How would that be possible? Walk me through it please.
It is accepted that cells are really symbiotic organisms composed of pre-existing, free-living organisms. Each of those pre-existing, free-living organisms must have taken millions of years to evolve.
 
What living thing existed and was evolving prior to the first cell?
Answered. An example:

Mitochondria are thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria through a process called endosymbiosis:
  1. A eukaryotic cell engulfed an aerobic prokaryote that once lived independently.

  2. The prokaryote formed an endosymbiotic relationship with the host cell, gradually developing into a mitochondrion.

Or do you suppose long chains of inanimate organic molecules are living?
Can they grow? Can they divide? If so, they are, in my book, living.
 
Answered. An example:

Mitochondria are thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria through a process called endosymbiosis:
  1. A eukaryotic cell engulfed an aerobic prokaryote that once lived independently.

  2. The prokaryote formed an endosymbiotic relationship with the host cell, gradually developing into a mitochondrion.


Can they grow? Can they divide? If so, they are, in my book, living.
"THOUGHT TO HAVE"

since theres no proof of it and they are basing it on assumptions I wouldnt put much into it,,
just another evo fantasy,,
 
15th post
It is accepted that cells are really symbiotic organisms composed of pre-existing, free-living organisms. Each of those pre-existing, free-living organisms must have taken millions of years to evolve.
So when did the first pre-existing, free-living organism make the leap from inanimate matter to life? Because how could it evolve before that?

This is new information to me because I've never heard of living pre-cell components. Do you have a link per chance?
 
Answered. An example:

Mitochondria are thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria through a process called endosymbiosis:
  1. A eukaryotic cell engulfed an aerobic prokaryote that once lived independently.

  2. The prokaryote formed an endosymbiotic relationship with the host cell, gradually developing into a mitochondrion.


Can they grow? Can they divide? If so, they are, in my book, living.
I'm still struggling with evolution occurring before a living thing is created. How does that work?
 
Says the guy who just googled it.
Why would you make such a statement/claim without checking/searching the board first?
This shows you are not only hostile but STUPID.
You, a one line imp, complains about intellect?

In fact, I have used 'Punctuated Equilibrium' MANY times at least as far back as 2013... ELEVEN YEARS Ago!!


You 12 IQ a$$hole! why didn't you check first?

`
 
Last edited:
Why would you make such a statement/claim without checking/searching the board first?
This shows you are not only hostile but STUPID.
You, a one line imp, complains about intellect?

In fact, I have used 'Punctuated Equilibrium' MANY times at least as far back as 2013... ELEVEN YEARS Ago!!


You 12 IQ a$$hole! why didn't you check first?

`
Maybe you should have checked my posting history as well, dummy.
 
Back
Top Bottom