A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[Heyo]

Can you come up with a coherent definition of what a kangaroo is?

I don't think @lostwanderingsoul has to. His argument works with any definition biologists could come up with.
There was a first kangaroo, it just doesn't make sense to think about it in an evolutionary context. It is similar to asking how many items make up a pile.

 

[McBell]

It is similar to asking how many items make up a pile.

Two.
But only if one is on top of the other.

 

[rational experiences]

Science invented for spatial conversions of all forms change. In the space. Observed understood. Converting must occur in a space.

Space a vacuum owns no backdrop sucks one way heat out removed.

Reasoned first for the state science.

Human stands on planet earth.

Human and all bio forms billions of living. Billions of variations equal self owned body forms to discuss seeing by a human.

Observation says a human is science.

Science however observing did not form the billions of self presences.

Fact of self one human as one advice. One holy advice.

Human says I want reactive space history yet owns life in heavens. Heavens gases sit in space.

Machine body taken from earth one mass form. First. Not the heavens.

Earth God.

Science only ever used earth God. However theories space and gases and radiation.

Natural one human observed you. Lying.

Minerals he heats converts to own metal for machine.

Minerals are dusts already separated naturally historic by mass radiation. From sun mass.

He theories earth as if it did not exist. Talks about all stages. Says science not observed but envisioned about dusts and radiation mass. Why a dust existed.

Invention thesis for reading why dust existed.

Before any extra applied radiation conversion. How to advice.

Earth then tried to recreate why a dust existed first. Instead makes a hole. Sin hole. A sink hole. Virtually a time machine shift of earth mass by inventor machine.

As he first theoried why earth mass owned dusts separated.

Equalled his theories to own machine plus react it. By human control. Artificial control.

Said his God earth image theme. Saw manifested irradiated all crawling things insects irradiated. Images as spirit form observed is science. All animals irradiated. All humans irradiated. Said they left life observed body attacked.

Flew in ark radiation flooding over mountain as flood radiation and landed as atop mountain. Ended effect. Ark moved upon the face of the deep heavens wAter gases.

Came out in cloud mass all images. Where the attack ended. Life was saved attack stopped.

Earth then rained flooding cooling the gases.

Observed by him. Scientist.

Why he thinks he invented life possessed by AI feedback.

Still keeps pretending a record of a recording was his inventing life status when he was observing scientific causes.

What first father's human memories lived life recorded says as it intermingles with all new human man experiences today recording sharing advice communicating voice.

 

[rational experiences]

Two.
But only if one is on top of the other.

View attachment 50181

A mountain becomes a pile of irradiated dusts at its feet where the angel delivering it's gas spirit message fell. As taught by men human scientists as the returned answer from God angel message in converting.

What he was told.

A science man reason why God attacked his life by metallic radiation cutting cooling in God exodus war of his DNA genetics human owned attacked. As a thesis mother maths generated attack. Causes of science female maths.......space thesis.

Why male life changed its nature. A human observed scientific taught effect. Reasoned by men in the sciences who detailed the science observations in their old science symbolisms.

 

[Heyo]

Two.
But only if one is on top of the other.

View attachment 50181

I don't see "two" specified there. Also, explaining a pile as heap ...

 

[McBell]

I don't see "two" specified there. Also, explaining a pile as heap ...

"laying one on top of another"

You only need two to lay one on top of another.

 

[Heyo]

"laying one on top of another"

You only need two to lay one on top of another.

Would you please look up what a heap is in the same dictionary?
If a heap is defined as "two", you are right.

 

[McBell]

Would you please look up what a heap is in the same dictionary?
If a heap is defined as "two", you are right.

You are familiar with the definition of the word "or", right?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am prepared to listen to your explanation of how there can be kangaroos today if there never was a first. You avoided the question because you have no answer. There was a day when there were no kangaroos and later there was a day when there were kangaroos. Somewhere in between there had to be the first one. Please give your best explanation of why this is not true. Now is your cahance to show how smart you are and how dumb I am.

I already answered this for you, but I'm guessing there were too many words for you to read -- or that it didn't say what you wanted it to say -- so you ignored it. Here it is again:

Your own foolishness right back at you.

First, there were millions upon millions of marsupial animals in Australia, once it separated from the rest of the continents. Yes, there were many species of marsupials, that couldn't breed with other species. And within each species, there were millions of animals. Evolutionary change, when it happens, starts with (usually) very small changes in some -- but not all -- individuals. Small enough that anyone would consider them the same species: a little taller, a slightly different colouring, teeth shaped ever-so slightly differently, a little more elasticity in the bounce, or whatever. But otherwise pretty much indisinguable from the rest. But if those tiny differences offer an advantage, and can be passed on genetically, then those tiny differences will eventually show up in the majority.

This can take generations. And the tiny differences keep happening, and after hundreds or thousands of generation -- especially if groups get separated from one other by some feature of nature, eventually you could have a herd of extremely similar (but not genetically identical) animals that we may call kangaroos. And their parents we would call kangaroos, and their grandparents!

But if you were able to look back much further, say hundreds of generations, you would turn up something that you would be forced to say was "different enough that we ought not call it a kangaroo."

Kangaroos and wallabees have common ancestors. Some species of kangaroos and wallabees can mate -- usually producing sterile offspring, occasionally producing sterile males females, and even less often, fertile females but not males. Yes, kangaroos and wallabees have many features in common, and yet they are different species.

The pixels I showed could be presented by the computer program that generated them one after the other, rather than in a single picture (in fact, that's how the computer actually does it, just so fast that it looks "all at once"). And in that case, my challenge to you, to decide which of those millions of pixels was no longer orange but red, and which was no longer red but violet. And you couldn't do it.

Your failure is to think big enough. Every who does this imagines 2 animals (or if they're really brave maybe as many as 11). But they refuse to do over millions of animals, over hundreds or thousands of generations. And that is why they simply can't understand what is being said to them. It is an utter failure of the imagination, and nothing more.

 

[gnostic]

Not just kangaroos.

How about the slow moving wombats and koalas?

They are not known as long-distance trekkers' and koalas most of their days up in the trees. And if they don’t die from exhaustion days and months of walking, they are easy preys to predators.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Can you come up with a coherent definition of what a kangaroo is?

I leave coherent definitions up to science. Surely they have enough brain power to know what is a kangaroo. Otherwise there would not be any kangaroos anywhere in the world today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I leave coherent definitions up to science. Surely they have enough brain power to know what is a kangaroo. Otherwise there would not be any kangaroos anywhere in the world today.

Scientists know that no such definition is possible. You just refuted your own argument.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I don't think @lostwanderingsoul has to. His argument works with any definition biologists could come up with.
There was a first kangaroo, it just doesn't make sense to think about it in an evolutionary context. It is similar to asking how many items make up a pile.

Thank you. If science says there were no kangaroos on day X and there were kangaroos on day Y then there had to be something called a kangaroo at some point. It does not matter how you define kangaroo. There is all I am saying and these other posters simply want to argue that is not how evolution works. But no matter how it works there had to be a first. That is all I am saying and they are too blinded by there definition of evolution to see it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I already answered this for you, but I'm guessing there were too many words for you to read -- or that it didn't say what you wanted it to say -- so you ignored it. Here it is again:

And what you cannot see is that one of those millions of animals had all the properties of a kangaroo and it was the first one.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Scientists know that no such definition is possible. You just refuted your own argument.

Amazing. If science cannot define a kangaroo then there are no kangaroos alive today.

 

[ratiocinator]

And what you cannot see is that one of those millions of animals had all the properties of a kangaroo and it was the first one.

No matter how many times people claim this sort of thing, it simply isn't true. There is no sensible definition of 'kangaroo' (or any other species) that would enable us to designate a first one.

If somebody was daft enough to arbitrarily make up a definition of 'kangaroo' that was exact enough to identify a first individual (in principle, at least), then it would just get silly. The first kangaroo would have been born from an 'almost but not quite kangaroo' (ABNQK) and said first kangaroo's offspring may well also be ABNQKs or kangaroos, or some combination, and for a long time you'd get both kangaroos and ABNQKs interbreeding and giving birth to combinations until the population had drifted into all kangaroos, except it probably never would be 100% - if you were being that stupidly exact about it, some of today's population of "kangaroos" may well not meet such an absurd standard. What's more all the ABNQKs would probably fail to meet the exact definition of kangaroo in different ways - so it's not like you'd only be dealing with two kinds of animal at that level of detail.

Evolution is gradual and happens to populations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. If science says there were no kangaroos on day X and there were kangaroos on day Y then there had to be something called a kangaroo at some point. It does not matter how you define kangaroo. There is all I am saying and these other posters simply want to argue that is not how evolution works. But no matter how it works there had to be a first. That is all I am saying and they are too blinded by there definition of evolution to see it.

No, you are bringing up a difference without a distinction. You are acting as if the name were the animal. Life does not work that way.

 

[ratiocinator]

Amazing. If science cannot define a kangaroo then there are no kangaroos alive today.

Nonsense. It's a question of not being able to be so exact about it that you can identify a particular individual as the first.

See also: ring species. Perhaps you think you can go around the ring and (apart from the overlap point) designate each individual into one species or the other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think @lostwanderingsoul has to. His argument works with any definition biologists could come up with.
There was a first kangaroo, it just doesn't make sense to think about it in an evolutionary context. It is similar to asking how many items make up a pile.

As I pointed out to @lostwanderingsoul biologists cannot come up with such an arbitrary definition, nor would they try. They know better. Partially due to experience where they tried to perform this mistake themselves. When the evolution of the first mammals was becoming well understood there were some serious fights about what was the first mammal. They eventually realized that the best that they could do was to say when specific traits first arrived in the fossil record. Defining a kangaroo on the first one that had a size 20 foot fails since its offspring could have feet smaller than that. On a genetic scale what he is demanding that one specific kangaroo gene be recognized and there is no such gene.

 

[F1fan]

Thank you. If science says there were no kangaroos on day X and there were kangaroos on day Y then there had to be something called a kangaroo at some point.

Evolution isn't precise like this. It could take a hundred thousand years, or more, for a pool of animals to change enough to be classified as simnifically different than the group it was separated from. So it's less confusing to say at that 100 million years ago there were no T Rex's, but 65 million years ago there were. There were changes to existing animals 100 million years ago that evolved into what became classified as a T Rex. Pools of animals often change rapidly over many hundreds or thousands of generations and then have a stable form that fits the environment. For example sharks have existed nearly unchanged for 25 million years, and they have stayed the same because they evolved to be very suitable and stable in their environment. There are few stressors to act on gene selection. Any species we find that has a huge fossil footprint were a stage in their evolution that was well suited to their environment.

We can look at how skin color in humans changed over time to adapt to the environment. Humans began as dark skin animals and as some migrated into what will be known as Europe the different in the environment selected genes that resulted in lighter skin. There was no first white person. There was a change in a select migrated group whose offspring changed over many, many generations. There was no day the first white child was born. There was no first white child. There's just a crude visual assessment we make. Looking at our genetic makeup can reveal we are a mix of different geographical pools. Many Europeans are even part Neanderthal.

It does not matter how you define kangaroo.

Kangaroo is defined as a set of attributes an animal has. If there is a distinct set of attribute by a type of kangaroo that is separated from others it can be classified as it's own species. We humans describe what we observe and if it is consistent and part of a population it gets a new classification. Look at white rhinos and black rhinos as examples.

There is all I am saying and these other posters simply want to argue that is not how evolution works. But no matter how it works there had to be a first.

When was the first white person? What exactly defines white? The white populations we observe today in northern Europe look different that people in south Italy. They look different than people in Morocco. And they look different that people in the Congo. Where does white begin?

That is all I am saying and they are too blinded by there definition of evolution to see it.

So you think science is blind because it cannot point to some dramatic "first" of a classified organism?