Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Ringtone]

Re: abiogensis

We don't know exactly how it happened. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was. What connects the two states is abiogenesis. It's a foregone conclusion.

So you know that abiogenesis happened . . . because there was no life and, then, suddenly, there was life. Nature necessarily did it via some process of chemical evolution!

Behold Fort Fun Indiana' religious faith of naturalism..

In the meantime, see the following article written by someone who is steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Oh, wait! The guy who wrote that article is I,, Michael Rawlings (a.k.a, Ringtone)! LOL!

Ringtone's opinion = steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research.

Fort Fun Indiana's opinion = steeped in faith.

____________

Edit: Fort Fun Indiana's opinion = steeped in blind faith, i.e., fideism.

 

[ding]

A major point in deviation. One so apparently large that it distinguishes itself from its former species unlike other slight variations. Punctuated equilibrium so to speak.

So again, rather than actually offer anything of value, you go off on a tangent to hide your ignorance. Rather than discussing what it was, you talk about how it's not used or is an old definition and then hurl a thinly veiled insult as if you actually believed you were talking down to someone of lesser intelligence.

So no, I don't think you do know why there are no transitional fossils. I think all you have done is a cursory google search and can't discuss why they don't exist because you don't know why they don't exist and you couldn't find the answer in a 5 minute google search. You're a fraud. A fake. A charlatan. A religious fanatic.

Because that is silly and false. You can try to talk about me all day (and you will), but you are wrong and will not get the answer you are looking for.

Because you don't know it.

 

[ding]

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. You can say "gods did it!", but that is still a form of abiogenesis. Life from no life.

I never said God did it. And I've never heard anyone say that special creation was a form of abiogenesis like you just did.

Given your inability to paint even the simplest of pictures of what abiogenesis would have looked like, it might as well have been a special creative act for all you know about it.

 

[Ringtone]

ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.

There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

You repeat yourself again, and the metaphysical circularity of your argument and the ad hominem of your argument are noted, just as your failure to directly address and refute my argument:

The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.​

​

While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.​

The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.​

 

[Ringtone]

Don't even try to throw shade on me, James. Of course I'm winning. No one on this thread has or can refute the potentiality of the following:

No, Michael, you aren't winning. Just ask others in this thread. You are on you own.

You are a liar and a fool., always have been.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you know that abiogenesis happened . . . because there was no life and, then, suddenly, there was life.

"Suddenly" is your word. We just know that once there was.no life on Earth, then there was. What connects these two states is abiogenesis: "life from not life".

Even your silly Adam and Eve creation myth is a convoluted form of abiogenesis.

 

[abu afak]

So you know that abiogenesis happened . . . because there was no life and, then, suddenly, there was life. Nature necessarily did it via some process of chemical evolution!

Behold Fort Fun Indiana' religious faith of naturalism..

In the meantime, see the following article written by someone who is steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Oh, wait! The guy who wrote that article is I,, Michael Rawlings (a.k.a, Ringtone)! LOL!

Ringtone's opinion = steeped in the pertinent abiogenetic research.

Fort Fun Indiana's opinion = steeped in faith.

He does NOT necessarily know.
He makes a beginner logic error with the absolute/superlative declaration.

One YOU also made saying abio was "Manifestly Impossible," and I caught you and made YOU pay.
You PANICKED, knowing you were caught, and tried to shift the burden...not being able to answer me . maybe 5 in a row.
You have been reduced to this behavior (and idiotic poetry) by others as well.
You're not in my league jr.
and you're a FRAUD who can only 'win' on your own Blog.... and post under your own dogma threads.
I take all comers in my Meaty ones that You avoid... which are NOT philosophical/semantic nonsense.

What we do have is, ie, threads like this that are suggestive of his claim, but not THE spark/"necessarily"

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth
Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Eartjh

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on

No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions. Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never said God did it.

I didn't say you did. I said you could say he did, and it would not conflict with anything i am saying.

Given your inability to paint even the simplest of pictures of what abiogenesis would have looked like

Of course i can. Any child who can read can go look it up. I can relate what scientists think, and that's probably about it. Is there a reason you want me to perform this exercise for you, when you could look it up yourself? I have no special access to info that you do not.

All this dancing and prancing on your part...and all for this? To what.... To say we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened? Well thank you, Captain Obvious. If we want to know any other mundane facts wrapped in a steaming pile of melodrama and self-aggrandizement, we will be sure to look you up.

 

[ding]

I never said God did it.

I didn't say you did. I said you could say he did, and it would not conflict with anything i am saying.

Given your inability to paint even the simplest of pictures of what abiogenesis would have looked like

Of course i can. Any child who can read can go look it up. I can relate what scientists think, and that's probably about it. Is there a reason you want me to perform this exercise for you, when you could look it up yourself? I have no special access to info that you do not.

All this dancing and prancing on your part...and all for this? To what.... To say we don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened? Well thank you, Captain Obvious. If we want to know any other mundane facts wrapped in a steaming pile of melodrama and self-aggrandizement, we will be sure to look you up.

That's probably why you still can't do it any better than you could discuss transitional fossils and their absence.

You can't really discuss any of this, can you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

transitional fossils and their absence.

Which is false.

 

[ding]

transitional fossils and their absence.

Which is false.

According to you all fossils are transitional fossils. According to you you have no idea HOW inanimate matter made the leap to life.

So, no. Not false. Transitional fossils don't exist for logical reasons. Logical reasons you know nothing about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

According to you all fossils are transitional fossils

In a way, yes, they are. All species are transitioning to another species at some rate or another. This is all that is meant when i say that.

But you delusional and wrong to think no transitional species have been found, by any definition.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

According to you you have no idea HOW inanimate matter made the leap to life.

Correct. We just know that it did, somehow.

 

[ding]

According to you all fossils are transitional fossils

In a way, yes, they are. All species are transitioning to another species at some rate or another. This is all that is meant when i say that.

But you delusional and wrong to think no transitional species have been found, by any definition.

It's been a bone of contention by those who don't believe in evolution.... for decades.

 

[ding]

According to you you have no idea HOW inanimate matter made the leap to life.

Correct. We just know that it did, somehow.

Well... no. We actually have an idea of how it would have had to have occurred.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's been a bone of contention by those who don't believe in evolution.... for decades.

Longer than that. And they are wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.

Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.

Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.

 

[ding]

It's been a bone of contention by those who don't believe in evolution.... for decades.

Longer than that. And they are wrong.

If you don't know why they don't exist how can you say that? It is the key point in the debate; major changes which led to entirely new species that were significantly different.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you don't know why they don't exist how can you say that?

They do exist. You are wrong. Ding, you are just frustrating yourself. Find one of your fellow religious charlatans to exchange lies with. You are pissing in the wind with anyone else.

 

[ding]

We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.

Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.

Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.

I'm not the one being weaselly. That would be you. And you are doing so because you are trying to bluff your way through this conversation. You still are not actually saying anything. You can't because you don't know. Constrained by determinism and physical laws doesn't say jack shit. What the fuck does that even mean?

Please tell me more about these main elements that you know a lot about. Please tell me how these elements interact. What had to have happened?